Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

YOUVILLE CENTRE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): On October 9, 1992, I had the pleasure of attending a unique high school graduation for 23 young mothers from the Ottawa-Carleton area.

Youville Centre is a high school for 30 mothers, where they learn at their own pace, secure in the knowledge that their babies and young children are being cared for in the adjoining day care.

In 1987, Sister Betty Anne Kinsella, recognizing a need within the community for an educational setting that could meet the special needs of young single mothers to complete their high school diploma, took up the challenge. With the assistance of the McHugh school and the Ministry of Education, the Youville Centre was established on Melrose Avenue. Three teachers are on staff to assist the students with their studies. Two day cares, one for infants and one for toddlers, provide child care services.

To date, 63 young women have graduated from Youville Centre. Many have gone on to university, community college and employment, but all have a common goal: to better themselves and provide a future for their children. Support services such as counselling, nutrition, parenting, legal and medical services are all available. A residence has been established that will accommodate up to five mothers and babies.

I have visited the centre and witnessed first hand the exceptional work that is being done and the results that come from providing assistance on a grass-roots level. At this time, there is a lengthy waiting list for entry to Youville. The centre is hoping to move to larger quarters in order to accommodate more young mothers and children.

To the director, Sister Betty Anne Kinsella, to the school principal, Tom White, to the teachers, day care workers and support staff, I extend my thanks for their diligence and dedication in providing the opportunity for these women to complete their education and become better prepared to contribute to society. However, my biggest "thank you" goes out to the young mothers who, in overcoming countless obstacles, have risen to the challenge and worked hard to achieve success.

OWEN SOUND SUN TIMES

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): A year ago I advised the Minister of Municipal Affairs that he had misjudged Grey county's views on land planning because he listened to only two sources of information: a tiny group of malcontented, displaced city people and the Owen Sound Sun Times.

I pointed out that the Sun Times was out of touch with the reality of the county, and as proof I offered the results of the 1991 municipal election, where voters had chosen candidates who represented their views and not the views of the editorial board of the Sun Times.

I am now pleased to be able to advise the minister that all this may have changed. The paper has a new editor, Jim Merriam, who seems to understand the people in the area which he serves. Although he has been there only a short time, he appears to be leading the staff in a new and positive direction. Grey county council is no longer receiving negative assaults which serve no purpose and seem to come from left field. The views of all the people, the ones who own and work their land, are being respected again. The views of a small, disgruntled minority are not the only ones represented.

It is with cautious hope that I tell the minister that while I still feel strongly that he should consult with local officials and get his sense of Grey and Grey's needs, he can once again rely on the Owen Sound Sun Times for a clear, more objective picture of the riding.

IROQUOIS FALLS CROSS-COUNTRY SKI CLUB

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Iroquois Falls Cross-Country Ski Club in the community of Iroquois Falls within our riding.

It's quite an interesting process they went through. This particular club formed some 10 or 15 years ago. A number of citizens within the community of Iroquois Falls came together in order to develop a cross-country ski club to give some recreation and entertainment for the people of the town of Iroquois Falls and surrounding areas.

What's to be noted here is that they are a club that did not necessarily sit back and wait for government grants or sit back and wait for things to be done. This group, being very active, went out on its own and developed much of its trail system, and much of the work was done without government help. Basically, they did it on their own. I'm proud to say that the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, under the leadership of Mr North, has granted money in order to buy trail groomers and different equipment, but overall most of that work was done on their own.

I would like to say that one of the things they did which I take a lot of pride in is that they had to build themselves a ski chalet. Unfortunately, they couldn't get the money through the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation because of the tough economic times that we're going through, so decided to do it on their own. They pulled together students from local high schools to become part of the labour of building this thing, and it really became a labour of love for this particular community and the people of the town of Iroquois Falls.

I want to tip my hat to them as their local member. I appreciate and I respect the hard work they have done in order to make the community of Iroquois Falls a better place for everyone. We salute them for their efforts.

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): Two years ago this December, the NDP made its decision to backtrack on provincial funding of the Red Hill Creek Expressway in Hamilton. Two years of government inaction have gone by and the government has offered no new solutions to the traffic infrastructure problem it created by cancelling funding.

Our leader recently asked Hamilton citizens to tell us how they feel about the issue, and almost every response demands immediate action to start building the Red Hill Creek Expressway now.

As one of the respondents put it, "The people of Hamilton-Wentworth now regret the mistake of electing the NDP government." Another resident wrote: "Cancellation of the Red Hill Creek Expressway is the greatest mistake that the present government could make. It is detrimental to Hamilton industry." Still another resident says: "I have expressed my opinion to the MPP for Wentworth East on this issue. Unfortunately, he would not even acknowledge my letter. I assume it is because he cannot democratically justify his position."

In the next few days our caucus is going to put a number of these responses on the record. We're going to give voice to the outrage that people in Hamilton feel over the NDP funding cut, in an effort to try and convince the NDP to change its position and build the Red Hill Creek Expressway now. It is urgently needed.

LONDON INVESTMENT IN EDUCATION COUNCIL

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Members of the London business community, educators and the three local boards of education in London have assembled a joint task force called the London Investment in Education Council. Its mandate is to create and provide a better understanding for students as to how education is directly linked to career opportunities.

The council's first major initiative, titled Do Jobs Grow on Trees, is a city-wide industry open house. Over 50 London industries, businesses and institutions are opening their doors for up to 5,000 grade 8 students on October 27, 28 and 29.

1340

Spearheaded by 3M Canada, this endeavour will provide hands-on demonstrations and employee-student interaction to increase the awareness of current emerging careers for students, educators and parents. Included in the list of participating businesses are General Motors, Canada Post, Sifton Properties, Fanshawe College, the University of Western Ontario, University Hospital, Emco and 3M Canada.

Last Tuesday at a news conference to announce this important initiative, I joined representatives of the three local school boards; Dr Bill Coyne, president and general manager of 3M, and two grade 8 students from St Mary Separate School, Shauna Birke and Dan Murphy. The students reminded us that they were certain that projects such as this and future efforts by that task force will make it easier for students to make the right decisions when choosing their course direction at the secondary level.

I compliment all involved in this project.

CITIZENSHIP COURT

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): Today I'd like to express my displeasure at what happened during the referendum, but I'm sure Canada will grow and become a stronger place. I rise to tell the members about an event held in Wilmot township in September which gave me the opportunity to reaffirm my commitment to Canada.

Special thanks go to Shirley Shearer and Elaine Gross, who co-sponsored a special citizenship court which was held in the New Hamburg community centre. This special court was presided over by Her Honour Judge Van Mossell, who has a deep love for Canada and her citizens. This event provided the opportunity for many local residents to reaffirm their commitment to Canada during Canada's 125th anniversary celebrations.

Judge Van Mossell was escorted by Sergeant Bowman from the Waterloo Regional Police; Harry Brightwell, the federal member of Parliament for Perth-Wellington-Waterloo, and myself. After the reaffirmation ceremony, the guests, which included a group of New Hamburg boy scouts, came forward and received a certificate of affirmation.

The evening was enhanced thanks to Alfred Kunz and the Nith Valley Singers and Jim Murray and the New Hamburg Band, who provided both entertainment and inspiration through song and music.

Once again, special thanks to Shirley Shearer and Elaine Gross for their commitment to their community and their country, Canada.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I am building a dossier on all the difficulties that are now occurring in this Legislative Assembly when it comes to providing the members with a free opportunity to be heard and for the public outside here being able to reach inside this institution to talk directly to the issues that really matter most.

A lot of our problems began on September 6, 1990, with the advent of this so-called New Democratic government that we have. What happened on June 8, 1992, was a resolution moved by Mr Cooke to shut down the debate in this House to give the people on the government side the final say on how much was said and how much was heard by this House with respect to difficulties proposed in their legislative agenda. They have shut us down, and most of us are very much perturbed by that. It is my hope that we all vote for a resolution I will be posing later that will open up our democratic institution.

While I have the floor, Mr Speaker, in that vein, it came as a very big concern to me that yesterday there was some concern expressed about those people who could and could not come into this chamber as members of the general public to view the proceedings here. I thank you now for the meeting that we had yesterday, but I will be proposing to the House leaders for the government side and the third party that we make rule changes that allow this chamber to be openly accessible to all our citizens.

POLICE OFFICERS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I rise today to acknowledge in the House the great debt of gratitude that all citizens of Ontario owe to the men and women who serve and protect our communities and families as police officers.

By enforcing the law, the police perform the positive act of ensuring that our common social contract, as expressed in our laws protecting the rights of all citizens, and especially the vulnerable members of our society, is maintained and respected.

However, police officers can only discharge their responsibilities effectively in an atmosphere of the kind of solid trust and confidence which should exist between them and their government. Today's police demonstration on the front lawn of Queen's Park is an indication that the crucially important relationship has been severely damaged. This is not the time to lay blame for this turn of events, for what lies at stake here is the principle of public and community safety.

The Premier comes from a political culture that is expert in the use of confrontation to achieve social and political goals. Today I call on the Premier and his government to transcend that partisan tradition and begin rebuilding that relationship of public trust and confidence with the men and women police officers of Ontario. I invite the Premier to give a sympathetic hearing to all the concerns of the police without setting any preconditions. I ask the Premier, who I know has the capacity to understand complex social issues, to now extend that same capacity to the very real concerns of police officers, their families and the communities they serve.

JOHNNY TSAPARIS

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I want to pay tribute to a Wellander who passed away and who will be sadly missed, Johnny Tsaparis, who owned and operated Johnny's Grill on east Main Street, right across from city hall, kitty-corner from Atlas Steel.

He came here decades ago as an immigrant from Macedonia, embraced this country, retaining every bit of that culture that was such a valuable heritage, and I tell you, helped make our community, the community of Welland, the great place that it is.

He was known literally by generations for his goodwill and his generosity. At Johnny's Grill, whether it was Johnny or his son George or any of their family serving, nobody was ever turned away for lack of money or lack of a credit card. Gosh, they never took credit cards because they were the sort of operation that ran up a tab.

Mr Tsaparis will surely be missed by his son, daughter-in-law and family. He was so typical of the great people who make this great country. It isn't constitutions that make countries; it's people like Johnny Tsaparis and other new Canadians who come here bringing with them a valuable culture and heritage and giving far more than they ever take back.

I want to pay tribute to what was a great man, Johnny Tsaparis. I want to express condolences to the family and I want to tell his family on behalf of this Legislature that we're all going to miss that fine man.

ORAL QUESTIONS

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Premier. Premier, as you've just heard -- with your name being chanted in fondness, I'm sure -- there are thousands of police officers outside on the lawn of this Legislative Building who have come from all over the province of Ontario today to register their grave concerns on the way in which your government has approached policing issues in this province.

For more than three weeks now, the Metro police association has simply been asking for a meeting with you to discuss its grievances; a simple meeting, no preconditions, Premier. They just want an open and frank discussion.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs, Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Didn't you hear Art Lymer this morning?

Mr Mahoney: You'll get a chance to answer if you want to wait for the questions.

In refusing to meet with the Metro police association, you've simply allowed a common cold to turn into pneumonia. You've allowed the situation to become a standoff instead of acting in the best interests of the public. It has now spread throughout the province.

Premier, the public in Ontario want you, sir, to show some leadership. They want you to take the initiative and help resolve this increasingly serious situation. Premier, will you do that today?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I just want to get on the record a comment made by Chief Lunney, who's the chief of police in Peel. I think we have shown leadership in a very difficult circumstance. Listen to what Chief Lunney says:

"Our job is to enforce laws, all laws, not just some. Failure amounts to dereliction of duty. The public cannot be reassured. They pay our salaries. They dictate the vital issues in our future."

He then goes on to say:

"The irregularities to uniform are contrary to our rules. They are unprofessional in appearance and a threat to officer safety. But now we know that traffic law enforcement statistics are drastically down. These laws are made to ensure public safety. When they are not enforced, safety is at risk."

I just want to say to the honourable member, I would hope that, rather than to try to turn this into some kind of partisan issue or launch a daily assault on the Premier, what he would be doing is indicating clearly that there is an appropriate way for this kind of dialogue to take place.

I have offered every good effort. I will continue to do so and so will the Solicitor General, but I would say to the honourable member, I think it's time that we all recognize that this government is prepared to meet and to dialogue. However, we have to recognize that issues of public safety and legitimate authority are involved with respect to what is taking place. That's what's at risk here.

1350

Mr Mahoney: We all know that the Premier's Solicitor General is his answer to Admiral Stockdale. We know that he's out of ammunition and he simply said that he doesn't have a green light to deal with this, so there's no point referring to his efforts. They want to talk to you. They have nothing to say to him any more.

I'm delighted that the Premier would choose to quote my chief from Peel region, Chief Lunney. Maybe you'd like to quote the entire article when he talks about the support that he has for the men and women of the Peel Regional Police force and their job action, when he says: "Their concerns are the same concerns that the chief has, the same frustrations that I've experiencedI'm pleased to tell you that I support them because I feel the same way."

That's Chief Lunney, and there's more, where he goes on to refer to your policies as twaddle, whatever that is. I think I know what it smells like, but I'm not sure what it is. He goes on in this article, Premier, to say that he supports the action of his men and women.

Let's go back a little and walk through history --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr Mahoney: By way of supplementary to the Premier, in 1987, as Leader --

Interjections.

Mr Mahoney: Do you want this?

The Speaker: Order. I ask the member to please place his supplementary.

Mr Mahoney: As Leader of the Opposition in 1987, he expressed disbelief that workers at McDonnell Douglas would have to undertake a job action in order to draw attention to occupational health and safety concerns. I'm sure his answer would be, "That was then."

He will undoubtedly recall, during 1991 during a job action by provincial truckers protesting taxes and federal regulations, both the Deputy Premier and the Minister of Transportation met with those truckers to discuss their grievances.

The Speaker: Would the member please place his supplementary.

Mr Mahoney: I'm sure he would say, "That was then."

We are given to understand that the Premier himself was even prepared to meet with those people, and everybody in the province can remember the Premier's own actions at Temagami.

Premier, why won't your government give the police in this province, the men and women who are sworn to serve and protect, the same consideration that you would give other workers?

Hon Mr Rae: I want to quote Chief Lunney's statement of October 26, just because I think it's important to do so: "I have never agreed with the job action decided by the membership of PRPA." These are his words; this is over his signature: "I have never agreed with the job action decided by the membership of PRPA. The irregularities to uniform are contrary to our rules. They are unprofessional in appearance and a threat to officer safety. But now we know that traffic law enforcement statistics are drastically down. These laws are made to ensure public safety. When they are not enforced, safety is at risk. A report will be tabulated, the board will be informed and provided recommendations to restore conformity."

Elsewhere in this letter, this is what he says: "This stalemate over the job action will not last. Having vented frustrations, understandable as they are, it's now time to get to the table and talk, for this dispute can still be resolved by talk." I fully agree with the words of Chief Lunney: "In a democratic state legitimate authority must win. An elected government will tolerate dissent to a reasonable degree and may be persuaded to alter its intentions, but it cannot tolerate outright defiance for long. Neither can the police services board, nor the chief."

Police in our society play an extraordinarily important role. If there's ever a sense in our society that a group of police officers in a union are indicating that there are some laws that will be enforced and other laws that won't be enforced, that there are some things that will be done and other things that won't be done, I think, and I hope the honourable member would recognize this, we have a precedent which is very different from any other situation which confronts us. We have a precedent which I don't think any government in the province could accept, whether it was a Conservative, Liberal or New Democratic Party government.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr Mahoney: I've said many times in this House that this Premier has principles and if we don't like them, he has others. It just simply depends on the issue of the day. When it's convenient, he will criticize something, and when it's convenient to suit his purpose, he'll pull quotes out and try to distort the facts.

The fact is, you can say what you want about Bob Lunney; Bob Lunney supports the men and women of Peel Regional Police and he supports the police of this province, and he sure as hell does not support you or your government or your actions.

Premier, you must understand that the Metro police officers have not undertaken this job action lightly. I don't think they're happy to be forced into this situation. They're professional men and women. They just want to get on with the job that they have to do. However, the sense among officers throughout this province is that your government dislikes and distrusts the police. By way of proof, I have a letter --

The Speaker: Does the member have a final supplementary?

Mr Mahoney: -- from the Peel Regional Police Association, under the signature of David Griffin, the administrator --

The Speaker: No. Would the member place a supplementary.

Mr Mahoney: -- in which he says, "The sense among our members is that your" --

The Speaker: No. Would the member take his seat, please. I ask the member to very briefly place a supplementary. We've utilized a great deal of time in the preambles and indeed in some of the response.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, I'm sure you understand this is a critically important issue and a certain amount of preamble is necessary.

Premier, do you not find it extraordinary that police officers feel so frustrated by your government and by you that they would have to undertake such a job action in order just to be heard? You've been quoted as saying that no one supports the police more strongly than you do. You can demonstrate that today. Premier, you cannot leave this matter wide open while you fly off to Japan. It is time to get off the sidelines. Why will you not take one small step, convene a meeting with the police and listen to their grievances?

Hon Mr Rae: In the clearest possible terms, I have offered to meet with them and that offer still stands.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: I want to say to the honourable member that the statements he has made and the views he has described as pertaining to me and as pertaining to this government are grossly unfair. I'm truly surprised --

Mr Mahoney: Are you hurt?

Hon Mr Rae: No, I'm not hurt. I am surprised. I'm not hurt. Hurting has nothing to do with it. I am surprised by someone who would inflame that kind of thinking.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga West, come to order.

Hon Mr Rae: I would say, when he suggests, for example, that this government would for an instant force people to take this kind of action, I am truly surprised by this Liberal Party, truly surprised by a Liberal Party which brought in the reforms to the Police Services Act, truly surprised that it would be taking the kind of attitude and the kind of positions that it is. I think it really is very different from a standard I would expect, very different.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): The problem the Premier has in calling for the rule of law to prevail is that it rings very hollow when yesterday we clearly established in this House that the Premier himself is not abiding by the rule of law and is not abiding by the very guidelines he established for the conduct of ministers. We established that from his office came a letter interfering with the administration of justice at the Ontario Municipal Board. We established that the Premier's own executive assistant was prevailing upon no less than the chair of the Ontario Municipal Board to expedite a hearing.

Incredibly, yesterday we heard the Premier's defence in these terms. He said: "What's the problem? It's a great project." I'm not surprised, because the Premier's government is the developer in this project. It is the respondent at the Ontario Municipal Board. But the Premier is wearing all the hats. The Premier as well appoints the chair and the members of the Ontario Municipal Board and, incredibly, feels that he is justified in trying to intervene in an extremely important decision about the timing of the hearing.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place a question, please.

Mr Sorbara: The Premier has had time to reflect on this matter and on the correspondence relating to this matter, and I simply ask him once again: Who is going to stand in judgement as to whether or not your letter to the Ontario Municipal Board, in a very important hearing, in a $400-million project, is going to be adjudged contrary to your very conflict-of-interest guidelines? Who is that going to be -- you or someone else?

1400

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I just want to say to the honourable member that, again, it's similar to the comments made by his colleague the member for Mississauga West, and I would say to him that he is making allegations which are untrue. He is drawing conclusions which I think are quite unfair and quite unreasonable.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Not true.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): That's not true. He's got the letter.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: The fact of the matter is that Mr Romano wrote a letter, the letter was replied to by Mr Kruger very clearly setting out the criteria which the board would follow, and it's extremely clear that there's absolutely no interference with the substance of the application that's before the board.

The government's support for the overall application is crystal clear. This is an issue about jobs; it's about clearing away a backlog. The idea that this government would somehow not have an interest in doing that in an overall way -- it is very clear. The idea that we would interfere with the Ontario Municipal Board in this particular case with respect to the substance of the case is absolutely, completely and utterly false and most unfair of the honourable member.

Mr Sorbara: The Premier is digging himself into a deeper and deeper hole. I just asked a page to come here. I am going to send a letter over to the Premier.

Remember yesterday, Mr Speaker, the content of the letter sent from the Premier's office asked for an expedited hearing for this very important matter. Now the Premier responds that John Kruger wrote back to the Premier's office saying, "Well, I'm terribly sorry, but frankly we don't have enough time to give you an expedited hearing." That letter was on September 21.

Remember, sir, the Premier has an interest in this, and the Premier also appoints the board. The conflict-of-interest guidelines say you shall not interfere in any decision in any quasi-judicial tribunal, including the OMB.

What do we have after John Kruger's letter saying, "Sorry, I cannot accede to your request"? We have a letter to the applicant, the citizen who is appealing to the board, and the letter to Mr Rosen, signed by the case worker, reads as follows. Remember, this applicant is saying, "I can't handle an expedited hearing."

The Speaker: Would the member place the supplementary, please.

Mr Sorbara: "This letter serves to clarify the hearing schedules for both of the abovereferenced matters. The board, subsequent to issuing its procedural order of August 24, 1992, has received several requests to hear the appeals against bylaw 23-4391 in an expedited fashion. As a result of these requests, the hearing of the OMB file will now commence on November 30."

I show to the Premier a copy of today's Globe and Mail. Here is the story, right here where the Premier says, "Oh, well, nothing was wrong." Right beside it is the Ontario Municipal Board advertisement saying that there's going to be a hearing now --

The Speaker: Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr Sorbara: -- on November 30, notwithstanding that the appellant himself has pleaded with the board to give him more time. I ask you once again, Premier, in light of the fact that the very case worker on this matter says, "I have received requests and I'm sorry, Mr Rosen, that in view of these requests we are going to expedite the hearing," what do you have to say to Mr Rosen, who is looking for a little bit of fairness?

Hon Mr Rae: What I have to say to the honourable member, because this is the question I'm referring to, is that the Ontario Municipal Board decides on the dates. They clearly indicated the criteria they've used. John Kruger has stated publicly that there's no special treatment, nothing at all of that kind, and the suggestion that there is, is an aspersion not only on me but an aspersion on the municipal board. The municipal board is completely independent. They make these decisions with respect to dates, and they've made the decisions with respect to dates.

The Speaker: The final, brief supplementary.

Mr Sorbara: The conflict-of-interest guidelines that the Premier imposed on his own cabinet are designed to avoid these very sorts of situations. The Premier yesterday said it was unfair to raise this matter in this House and accuse him of interfering with the administration of justice.

Remember what the letter said. The letter to the OMB said, and I am quoting: "I understand this application has met all of the board's priorities for an expedited request. As you can appreciate, all parties, including the provincial government with its interest in this development, are concerned about the effects any delay would have." It also says, "I understand that the applicant himself agrees with an expedited hearing."

Now let's hear about fairness, sir. These hearings before the board are designed to give those who are appealing to the board a fair opportunity to be heard.

The Speaker: And your supplementary?

Mr Sorbara: This is what Mr Rosen, the applicant, has to say. He says, sir -- this is extremely important and I ask you to bear with me -- in a letter to the board: "In closing, I understand that the Ontario Municipal Board has received a number of requests from different parties for an expedited hearing, including a letter from Bob Rae's office. It is not proper for the Office of the Premier to be directing to the OMB on how to proceed on matters under the OMB's exclusive jurisdiction. In addition, the letter from the Premier's office -- "

The Speaker: And your supplementary?

Mr Sorbara: -- "made representations on my behalf without my permission which misrepresented my position" --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. I remind the House that we have spent 20 minutes on the first two questions. Members quite properly ask to have an opportunity for many questions to be asked during the hour. A third of the time has gone by and we're still on the second question. Would the member please quickly get to his question.

Mr Sorbara: Yes, I will, Mr Speaker. I want to know what the Premier says to Mr Rosen, who is a private citizen appealing this matter, who says, "I cannot prepare my case appropriately if this matter is heard in November, and the Premier has misrepresented my position to the OMB and the Premier has violated his own guidelines which say you should not, as a minister, write, ever, to a judicial body to affect a decision of that body."

What does the Premier have to say to Mr Rosen, who says he can now not get a fair hearing because the matter has been expedited completely consistent with the Premier's interference with the board's decision-making power?

Hon Mr Rae: The board determines these matters entirely. The board will determine these matters entirely. The board will decide on the dates for a hearing. There are thousands of jobs at stake here. There are thousands and thousands of jobs at stake here. I would have thought that the honourable member would have had some concern --

Mr Sorbara: You can't write the board like that. They have decided at your request. You're the developer. You can't push the board around like that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the Premier take his seat, please. I first ask the member for York Centre to come to order. He asked a question and I presume he would like to hear the response. I would ask the member to wait patiently and allow the person to respond to your question. Does the Premier have anything further to add?

New question, the leader of the third party.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Premier, there are thousands of police officers outside. On my desk are some 50,000 petitions which will be introduced into the Legislature later today. The police officers and the people who have signed these petitions, feel -- and I understand why they feel this way -- that when it comes to laws and regulations, procedures concerning law enforcement, your government spends more time listening to special interests, more time listening to criminals, than it does listening to the men and women who risk their lives every day to protect Ontarians. That's how they feel, Mr Premier.

Premier, don't you think there's something wrong with this?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm going to refer that question to the Solicitor General.

1410

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): In response to the leader of the third party, I want to assure him, as I have done on many occasions now -- and let me look straight at him and tell him again this afternoon -- that I, as Solicitor General of this province, and the officials of my ministry have had an ongoing and long-standing relationship with the police and the police representatives of this province, and that will continue.

I want to assure him as well, as this province moves towards community policing and continuing to serve the people we all support as elected representatives, that they too will be allowed to have a voice in their Ontario and in their home towns across this province, and that was done.

I totally reject and I find very difficult the kinds of assertions the member opposite makes that would suggest this government has anything other than undying respect for the policemen and policewomen in this force.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Harris: By way of supplementary to the Solicitor General, there's no point in lecturing me or pointing your finger at me. I'm telling you how they feel. They have told me this is how they feel. This is how they feel. You can't replace how they feel. Surely you would agree with me, if you believe they're wrong in feeling that way, that you think one thing, that they're wrong to feel that way, but if you would understand that they do feel that way and that you could resolve all this by simply meeting with them, wouldn't any reasonable person in a position of authority -- Premier, Solicitor General, past, present or future -- do that?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I realize that the Police Association of Ontario and its president inked a memo to all police forces in this province indicating what the results of the consultations with this government and this ministry and this minister were. I'd suggest, if you haven't read that to date, that you do it.

I also understand an ad was placed in the Toronto Sun and issued to every Ontario Provincial Police officer in this province, by the OPP executive, condemning, and not condoning, the actions of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association. I know that as well. What I know is that if we can stop this degree of emotion and rhetoric and those trying to feed into that kind of disdainful rhetoric, I along with the leadership of all these police organizations can come calmly to a table and resolve this conflict, I believe, to the wellbeing of every person in this province of ours.

Mr Harris: Let me say this to the Solicitor General: It is very easy for you and the Premier and for me to take this above an emotional level, but it's very difficult for police officers and families of police officers whose lives are on the line every day not to have a little bit of emotion creep into their concerns.

Mr Solicitor General, they feel you do not understand. I understand those feelings. Every action I've seen from you and your Premier reinforces that. Mr Solicitor General, last week your Premier said: "Do you think that former Premier Bill Davis would respond differently if this happened to him, or former Premier David Peterson, or former Premier John Robarts? Does anybody honestly believe that any Premier would respond in a different way?" I'm here to tell you that I honestly believe all three of those premiers would have responded in a different way.

Mr Solicitor General, I also honestly believe that all three of those premiers, while they may have had disagreements with the police from time to time, had the trust; they had the trust that they, their solicitors general and their governments had the best interests of the police officers in mind. You do not have that trust, Mr Solicitor General. Your Premier does not have that trust.

I appeal to you today and suggest to you that you can take one very small step towards regaining a little bit of that trust by offering to put aside this game of chicken, to put aside this "them or us," to put aside this "who's right and who's wrong" and meet with the police officers of Metropolitan Toronto. Will you do that?

Hon Mr Pilkey: We have done nothing other than to extend a hand so that we might meet and we might solve this particular problem.

I want to remind the member opposite -- putting the rhetoric aside, let's review for just a moment some of the factual situations. That, as you know, is what police do: Deal with facts. It's a fact that we've supported the Ontario Provincial Police this year, in their request, by authorizing some 241 additional officers. Will you answer for me the last time it was when your government or that government responded to that kind of staffing request to that degree?

Let me give you another fact while you're thinking of your response to that one. Will you also remind me of when the last time was that you assisted them in their estimate problems and provided an additional $45 million? Perhaps he could answer that one.

Perhaps you could respond on the last time a government built an entire new general headquarters and administration, as this government is doing in Orillia for the Ontario Provincial Police. And maybe you could remind me when it was last, as this government has done, you have brought forward additional training and the dollars to go along with it to enhance the effectiveness of our police men and women. Perhaps he could address those facts and get off the rhetoric and understand how this government in reality --

The Speaker: Will the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Pilkey: -- is trying to support the men and women who wear the uniform in this province.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I guess that comment by the Solicitor General just proves the old adage: "You can't buy somebody's trust. You've got to earn it."

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): From a curbsider, that's some comment.

Mr Stockwell: That's awful. Mr Speaker, I'll continue; I'll ignore that comment.

The Speaker: To whom is your question directed?

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I'll go to the Premier, Mr Speaker. Mr Premier, I also have a copy of this letter that Mr Jeff Rosen sent to the Ontario Municipal Board. He says very clearly in this letter, on page 3, that in addition to the letter from the Premier's office, which he said you shouldn't have done, you made representations on his behalf without his permission, and those representations in fact misrepresented his position for an expedited hearing date.

My question to the Premier is this: Your staff wrote a letter to the OMB, a quasi-judicial board, clearly in conflict with section 22 of your conflict of interest guidelines, to the chairman of the board, asking that a date for an OMB hearing which was scheduled for the latter part of January be moved up to November 30.

In that letter your staff, who represent you, Mr Premier, misrepresented the position of those people who were fighting this development. You had the date moved up from January 25 to November 30. They say so themselves at the OMB. They've had representations to get this date moved up.

Premier, my question is very clear. How can Mr Rosen feel that he is going to get a fair hearing? And if he in fact does lose at the OMB, how are you going to explain to him that you had nothing to do with it?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): We're talking about a scheduling question, which the board has to determine and which the board normally determines. The board, in the ordinary course of events, determines it.

The board establishes its priorities. The board knows perfectly well, as a matter of public policy, the interest that we have, the interest that the Ministry of Transportation has, the interest that the Ministry of Housing has, the interest that other ministries have, that the GTA has and that the municipality has with respect to the city of York. The board is aware of that. The board makes the determination on the basis of the representations that are made to it by the individuals involved. Those are the facts.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Stockwell: You're suggesting this is a scheduling problem. I submit to you, Mr Premier, that you appointed Mr Dale Martin, a well-known NDP hack, to expedite through the OMB those projects that were of scheduling priority. If it were simply a scheduling problem, why would you have not simply called Mr Dale Martin? Because Mr Martin, as we all well know, is in charge of moving forward those kinds of important projects.

1420

The Premier's staff didn't call Mr Martin. The Premier's staff didn't just talk about a scheduling problem. The Premier's staff, which is the developer in this instance, talked about all levels of government supporting this project. He talked about not any unnecessary delays for fear of the detriment to this project.

My question to the Premier is not a scheduling question. Your letter puts you on record as supporting it. Your letter says that we need to move the date up. The date was moved up. Mr Rosen wasn't consulted and you didn't represent his views truthfully in the letter. My question stands: How is Mr Rosen going to believe that he got a fair and honest decision, when he's up against the province, the cabinet and the Premier?

Hon Bob Rae: I take it that what the member seems to be saying is that if Dale Martin had written the letter, that would be okay.

Mr Stockwell: Yes.

Hon Mr Rae: Oh, I see. Now I'm really at a loss.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: The issue is jobs, the issue is jobs, the issue is jobs. The issue is dealing with a problem with respect --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the Premier take his seat. Premier.

Hon Mr Rae: I just say again to the honourable member, the issue is jobs, very clearly. It's one in which a number of people involved in the project have indicated their concern. I would say to the honourable member that the government's interest in this matter has been perfectly clear from the very beginning. There's no question about that. There's no division about that. There's no conflict about that. It's very clear. No one's tried to hide it. We were all at the signing ceremony together. It's a project we all support. We want this project to go ahead.

What the OMB does with respect to the date, what the OMB does with respect to the substance, is entirely up to the OMB. But let there be no doubt: I think this is a good project and I hope it goes ahead, but it's up to the OMB to determine the manner in which that takes place. That's a matter of public record.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Premier, the issue is not jobs. All the developments that go before the OMB have a job component in them. That's not the question. The question isn't jobs, jobs, jobs; it's influence, influence, influence, and who's peddling that influence.

Mr Premier, you're saying to me that if you had talked to Mr Martin, everything would have been okay. Do you not know why you appointed Mr Martin? You appointed Mr Martin to handle issues and cases just like this. He was appointed to facilitate projects through the OMB apparently as a non-partisan, outside person. You appointed him, Mr Premier. If you had called him, he would have easily slid this one through. You didn't.

The question, Mr Premier, is this: How is Mr --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member could proceed directly and place his supplementary.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. The member for Etobicoke West will place his final supplementary, please.

Mr Stockwell: I'll say it again, Mr Speaker, if it's going to raise their hackles again. Mr Martin was appointed to facilitate projects through the OMB. That's why he was appointed. He was going to make a hit list of the important projects --

The Speaker: And your supplementary, please.

Mr Stockwell: -- and push them through, like the Palladium in Ottawa that they took a lot of bows about.

Mr Premier, Mr Rosen said in his letter, has said to the OMB, that he's not ready nor prepared to start dealing with this issue at the OMB at the latter part of November. Mr Rosen doesn't feel he'll be capable. Now, you have asked the OMB to move this date. You have told the OMB that you support this project. Your staff has come forward and said, "We've got to speed it up so we get it on track."

The Speaker: Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr Stockwell: Can you answer the question I asked the first time? How is Mr Rosen going to believe that he got a fair and honest hearing when the Premier of Ontario gets involved, asking to move a project up, telling the OMB that he's in favour; Mr Rosen, when he's not? How can he honestly think he's going to get a fair hearing?

Hon Mr Rae: Because the simple question of scheduling is a matter that's going to be decided by the OMB. That issue is going to be settled by the OMB, and it will be settled on the OMB's assessment of the interests of all the parties and of the inconvenience to the parties.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: That's the job of a tribunal to make that assessment. It's not my job to make that assessment; it's the job of the tribunal.

With respect to the substance of the application --

Interjections.

The Speaker : Could the Premier take his seat, please. No, would the member for Renfrew North be seated for a moment. New question, the member for Renfrew North.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is also for the Premier, and it builds upon the question asked by my colleague the member for Mississauga West earlier this afternoon in question period.

It's quite clear, Mr Premier, with thousands of police officers on the lawns of this Legislative Building this afternoon, that there clearly exists a very real problem and a very real tension between the police community in this province and your government.

As the member for Mississauga West so eloquently observed, the police men and women of this province themselves are saying that they believe that your government neither likes nor trusts the police. That is what the police community is telling this Legislature today, and that's what they've been observing over the past number of months.

I ask the Premier this: Having regard to the fact that it's only four months ago that his own parliamentary assistant, the honourable member for St Andrew-St Patrick, made comments in Hamilton that were viewed by many of us, and certainly most in the police community, as absolutely inflammatory -- and I ask the Premier to remember what Ms Akande said in Hamilton in June of this year -- having regard to what his own parliamentary assistant has said, can he really be surprised that the thousands of police men and women who've gathered on the lawns of this parliamentary place today are concerned about the lack of trust and respect that seems evident from the Ontario government today?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr Speaker, I'll refer that question to the Solicitor General.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Point of order?

REFERRAL OF QUESTION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, he cannot refer a question about one of his former parliamentary assistants. It belongs to his ministry; he must answer.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member will know that in the rules, a question directed to a minister --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member will know that under the standing orders, when a question is directed to a minister, if the minister believes the question should properly be redirected, the minister has the opportunity to do that.

Mr Elston: He's running away, Mr Speaker. He's trying to --

The Speaker: I'm sorry to disappoint the member for Bruce, but there is not anything out of order. The Solicitor General.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): The Ministry of the Solicitor General has --

The Speaker: Point of order, the leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): On the same point of order, are you telling us that it would be acceptable for a question about transportation to be directed to the Minister of Health? I would suggest you would know right away that that is unacceptable and out of order. We have a question here that has nothing to do with the Solicitor General. I wonder why, now that you understand that --

1430

Interjections.

The Speaker: Yes, I appreciate there was a question with respect to policing, and the Premier decided to direct it to the Solicitor General. In my view, there is nothing out of order about that. The Solicitor General has authority for the police forces in the province of Ontario.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Hon Mr Pilkey: I have no comment with respect to the question of a member by one of the elected representatives here, because, quite frankly, the efforts we are making on behalf of policing in the Ministry of the Solicitor General are well beyond any single remark.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Oriole.

Hon Mr Pilkey: They reach very deeply and rather directly into every municipal and provincial police force we have an association with.

I have indicated to the member opposite in my earlier remarks the very positive, the very direct, the very kind of partnership initiatives we have undertaken which will add to the structural framework of policing in this province, and I know, as sure as I am standing here, we will see the benefits of that training, we will see the benefit of those procedures, and every police officer and every citizen in this province in the future will be enhanced and improved. We will have a growing and more positive relationship as a result of these programs, and that includes the race relations programs we are entering into with the police of this province.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I think all thoughtful members know that the relationship between any government in a democratic society and its police force is one of the most complex, sensitive and difficult one can find in the community.

It is a question to the government, and it was a question because it's got to be a question to the leader of the government: Is it any wonder that in Ontario, in 1992, we have come to this very regrettable and worrisome situation where we have, for the first time that I can recall, thousands of policemen and women coming to this parliamentary place telling us they believe there is a serious, dangerous want to trust and respect on behalf of the government with respect to the police in the community? Is it any wonder that we've got this situation, when but weeks ago the parliamentary assistant to Premier Rae said in Hamilton, "No one seems to have a problem in identifying us," namely the black community, "when they want to shoot us," a comment that infuriated and inflamed the community at large and the police community specifically.

I ask the Premier, as leader of the government, in light of these kinds of comments and other actions by the leadership within the New Democratic Party and government of Ontario, what measures is he going to take, as leader of the government and leader of the province, to repair and repair quickly this most important and this most strained of relationships?

Hon Mr Pilkey: There are any number of people inside these chambers and outside these chambers who make remarks from time to time. I don't attempt to countenance them or anything of that nature.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Pilkey: But what I am here to tell you, Mr Speaker, and through you the citizens we represent, is that we are not about single remarks or comments from any and all quarters. What we're about, in this multicultural and multiracial society here in Ontario, which, as everyone knows factually, is a growing situation where we'll have, I believe, some 45% of our fellow citizens by the year 2000 -- we will all be here together as one in this multicultural, multiracial society.

We have enacted a variety of programs through the ministry, in cooperation with our police departments, to enhance race relations, to give that kind of training, to have interactive videos so that all of us can move towards community policing, an all-embracing community, a community of one, and we can live and we can police in that kind of harmonious situation. We shouldn't be led off and distracted from that by trying to peg single comments in the way of that very positive initiative.

The Speaker: New question.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to raise a point of order which flows out of the answer the Premier gave to a previous question. It's under standing order 23, where it says, "In debate, a member shall be called to order by the Speaker if he or she refers to any matter that is the subject of a proceeding that is before any quasi-judicial body constituted by the House or by or under the authority of an act of the Legislature."

The Premier commented very clearly, and I think Hansard would show it, on the merits of the case before the Ontario Municipal Board by saying that it is a very good project and it should go forward. I think if you review Hansard, the record will show that.

Mr Speaker, I'm bringing this to your attention as a matter that is totally inappropriate for a member, let alone the Premier of the province, to be commenting on. In addition, contrary to his own conflict-of-interest guidelines, he is debating in a manner that is totally contrary to the rules. I would ask you, Mr Speaker, to consider the rationale for this particular rule. Why would this rule be there, and how would it apply to the comments that the Premier made in response?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Ottawa West, I appreciate the matter which he's drawn to my attention, and while I'm not sure whether he has a point of order or not, I'd be very pleased to take a look at the matters to which he refers.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): My question is to the Premier and is related to the demonstration that occurred on the lawns of Queen's Park today. I think it's specifically related to him and we're hoping that he will respond, because certainly policemen and policewomen across this province are hoping for a response from the leader of the government.

The Premier may recall some time ago a shooting in Metropolitan Toronto. It involved Constable Robert Rice chasing a suspected drug dealer through back alleys, being confronted by this individual with a knife, and the shooting occurred.

Mr Rae, the Premier, arranged a meeting over a weekend, I believe, with representatives from the Black Action Defence Committee and others.

Interjection: Sunday afternoon.

Mr Runciman: To quickly respond, I'm advised it was on a Sunday. We have the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association, thousands of police officers right across this province asking for the same opportunity the Premier afforded a special interest group on a weekend, on a Sunday, and he's not prepared to do that for men and women who are out there putting their lives on the line for us on a daily basis.

I ask the Premier to stand up here in the House today and tell us why he continues to refuse to sit down with these people, hear their concerns, hear from the people who are out there facing those challenges every day.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm going to refer that again to the Solicitor General.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): I very much appreciate the question from the member for Leeds-Grenville.

Interjections.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Come on, Bob Rae, answer the question. Just answer one question.

Hon Mr Rae: Do you really want to know the answer to that?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Pilkey: He says that the Premier of this province was quick to convene a meeting --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I would ask all members to respect the traditions of this chamber and allow the minister the opportunity to be heard.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): We don't want to hear from him.

Interjections.

1440

The Speaker: Order. Oral questions; the member for Halton North.

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): My question is for the Minister of the Environment.

The Speaker: Point of order, the member for Bruce.

ATTENDANCE OF PREMIER

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: There has been a remarkable cutback in the manner in which people are able to speak in this assembly. It has caused me to rise on several points --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Elston: It has caused me to stand on more than one occasion in this chamber, Mr Speaker, to complain to you that we are not able to put our questions to people at a time when we think it is necessary to question the merit of public issues.

The Premier of this province has been absent on several occasions for good reasons. He has already planned to be out of this place for a period of some 16 days during regular sitting time of this House. He has chosen to schedule meetings and filmings of his blather for publication in the public airwaves during the time when he should be in this place one hour of the day required under our routine proceedings. He has really conspired to prevent us asking the questions of him.

Mr Speaker, it is for me to point out to you that if he plans not to attend, if he plans as well to frustrate us, it is your duty as the Speaker to stand in and find a way of making sure that our rights as the minority in this Parliament can be appreciated, and in fact that we will have a chance to put the questions which we have for him, and in that way address issues of immediate and important public interest.

The Speaker: I understand --

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, I wish to announce to you that we will not be in this place today because of the Premier's unwillingness to be with us here.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. I appreciate --

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Point of order.

The Speaker: Is this on the same point of order?

Mr Cousens: Yes, it is.

The Speaker: Okay. I've heard the point of order -- I understand that it's a fairly simple one to deal with. While I appreciate fully the member's interest and the concern which he has expressed, the member will know that there is nothing in the standing orders to compel the attendance of any member of the House.

Mr Elston: You are supposed to protect members of the minority.

The Speaker: Your Speaker is powerless to compel the attendance of anyone. If the rules were changed, of course, then it would be up to the Speaker to try to enforce those rules.

It is time for an oral question. The member for Halton North.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, on a point of order.

The Speaker: A new point of order? The member for Markham.

Mr Cousens: Referring to the question that was asked by the member for Leeds-Grenville to the Premier, the Premier has abused the privilege of Premier in not coming forward and giving a straight answer to the member for Leeds-Grenville. The member has posed a question that pertained particularly to the Premier's ability to meet with the police and the fact that the Premier had met with another group on a Sunday afternoon. He has laid out that question. It did not --

The Speaker: Would the member for Markham please take his seat. I understand his point of order, but I must tell him that there is not a point of order. The question was asked. It was within the prerogative of the Premier to redirect, which he did, and there's nothing out of order about that.

I will recognize the member for Halton North with his question.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, on a point of personal privilege.

The Speaker: A matter of privilege?

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): Point of order over here, Mr Speaker.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, taking this as an issue, if in fact this is on --

The Speaker: The member for Markham, just take your seat for a moment, please.

There seems to be a tiny bit of confusion. Whether we are inside question period or not, a point of order takes precedence. I have a responsibility to recognize it. I have told the honourable member for Halton North that he will have his question. I see the clock. The member for Markham.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Mr Speaker, I have a question of procedure at this point in time. Would it not be appropriate for us to have the supplementary question before it goes to the government? That was our intent.

The Speaker: No. The person --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The person who posed the question is not in the chamber for the supplementary.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I have a point of order. We have a supplementary.

The Speaker: No. Would the member for Etobicoke West please come to order and take his seat. I recognize the member for Markham.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, on a point of personal privilege dealing with the same issue that I referred to as a point of order, and if incorrectly calling it a point of order, the privilege of a member of the opposition has been abused by virtue of the fact that the Premier has failed to answer a question directed to him, that pertained to him, and that totally touches on his responsibility as Premier. It did not refer in any way to the activities or potential work of the Solicitor General. So by virtue of the fact that the member for Leeds-Grenville asked the Premier a question about him, the Premier incorrectly referred that to another minister.

I ask you, Mr Speaker, in the interests of the House and in fairness to all, and for the privileges of the member for Leeds-Grenville, that you look at the rules of this House in light of the fact that it was directly a question to the Premier and was not one that could easily, logically or rationally be referred to any other person.

The Speaker: I understand the member's point, and while the ruling I made stands, I'm more than happy to take a look at Hansard and to take a look at the standing rules to assure myself that a correct decision was made.

I must say to the member that the subject material of the question allowed the Premier, or indeed any other minister, to redirect the question. In fact, that's what he did, and I did not see anything out of order about that.

1450

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Point of order, the member for St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: Mr Speaker, your responsibility in the House, as you know, is to maintain order and decorum in the House. It is very difficult to ensure that there is going to be decorum in the House when the Premier of the province is never in the House. In the interests of decorum in the House, in the interests of preserving some kind of sanity in this building, it's going to be essential for the government -- I understand not necessarily for you -- to produce the Premier.

He has been here in the House only the second time in the whole session, to my recollection. He announces he's going to head for Asia for three weeks. The Premier is never accountable and that's why we have lack of order in the House.

The Speaker: I understand the point which the member for St Catharines makes and I trust the member will realize that this is far beyond my control. It is a matter perhaps of discussion for the three House leaders at some point, but it is not a matter for the House and it is not a matter for your Speaker.

The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, the supplementary that was supposed to be placed by this party was not by the member for Leeds-Grenville; the supplementary was being placed by the member for Burlington South. Mr Speaker, that supplementary was properly before the House and I ask you to recognize --

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): He vacated his seat.

Mr Stockwell: The member for Burlington South did not leave the chamber, although that should have nothing to do with the point of order. The member for Burlington South is prepared to put the supplementary at this point, in due process and proper order.

The Speaker: I understand full well the point of order of the member for Etobicoke West. What I must remind the member is that I stood and waited for order to be restored. The moment when order was restored, I looked and there was not a person standing. Many of the members had left the chamber. I then recognized, in rotation, by our standing orders, the government side. Indeed, the member for Halton North had stood. Therefore, I recognized him, and I now recognize him for his question.

LANDFILL

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. The minister well knows my opposition and my constituents' opposition to the proposed landfill site by Reclamations Systems Inc and the Acton quarry.

The minister is well aware that when RSI first announced the proposal in 1987, residents formed a group known as Protect Our Water and Environmental Resources. This group, along with many others, including the town of Halton Hills and the region of Halton, has been very active in its opposition, along with myself, to the proposed landfill site. They believe it to be unsuitable and inappropriate in its location within the Niagara Escarpment area.

The minister is aware that a joint board, established under the Consolidated Hearings Act, sat this last June to hear and consider the necessary approvals. On September 16, the board released its decision. It determined that it did not have the jurisdiction to consider the matter set out and the hearing was terminated. For the sake of my constituents and myself, does the minister support the board's decision?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): I know how much work this member has put into his opposition to this particular hearing and I'm glad to be able to tell him that the board, as he knows, decided not to continue hearing the case because it felt that the matters under discussion had not progressed far enough and had not been brought far enough along by RSI. In fact, what the board said was that, in other words, it was the opinion of the board that RSI, the proponent, had not done enough work.

My ministry is satisfied that the result of the board's decision with respect to the RSI proposal is reasonable. We are also satisfied that this ruling will not jeopardize the continuation of other hearings that are already in process.

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

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Mr Speaker, point of order.

The Speaker: Point of order, the member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, I would like to serve notice that with regard to the question I asked at the beginning of question period to the Premier, I'm totally dissatisfied with his answer and will be filing the papers to require the late show, which I believe will have to be held tomorrow night after the House.

The Speaker: I appreciate the fact that the member realizes he needs to file a paper within the necessary time frame and, indeed, our late show is on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

It is now time for petitions. The member for London North.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Mr Speaker, according to standing order 34(a), with regard to the Speaker's ruling relating to oral questions that are not debatable or subject to appeal, it does say, "However, a member who is not satisfied with the response," and it goes on to say, "or who has been told that his or her question is not urgent or of public importance, may give notice orally at the end of the oral question period that he or she intends to raise the subject matter of the question on the adjournment of the House and must give written notice to the Speaker not later than 4 pm the same day and file reasons for dissatisfaction with the Clerk at the table before 5 pm."

Mr Speaker, I will be giving notice that I'm dissatisfied with the ruling. I felt that the supplementary ought to be ours and that that ought to have been the order that you should have received the questions in at that point in time. We will indeed be making that statement in writing to you, Mr Speaker, before 5 o'clock.

The Speaker: Point of order?

Mr Remo Mancini (Essex South): Mr Speaker, you will know that both you and I have served in this chamber for a good period of time. Over that period of time, a certain tradition and certain procedures have in fact been built up as to when the Speaker calls grave disorder and when the Speaker adjourns the House.

Having watched you adhere to those particular traditions over the last couple of years and having sat here and having seen you announce to the House that you concluded that there was in fact grave disorder on certain occasions, adjourn the House for 10 or 15 minutes and had the House then reconvene, I wanted to ask you, because I could not understand why today, after approximately three minutes of grave disorder, the House was not adjourned, as you would have customarily done. It would have given everyone a chance to calm down, probably given the Premier a chance to return, if his schedule would have allowed it, and would have allowed --

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): More questions.

Mr Mancini: More questions. It would have allowed the retention, from what I could see, of approximately six to seven minutes of question period, which would have allowed members of the opposition to continue questioning the government on the important issues of the day.

I'd like you to explain to me, sir: What was the difference today between the disorder we had and all the other occasions when you and the previous Speakers have in fact announced there was grave disorder and adjourned the House?

The Speaker: To the member for Essex South, I'm not sure it's a healthy exercise to be comparing disorders one to another. What I can tell the member is that at any given moment in time your Speaker attempts to assess the situation and to handle it as appropriately as the situation prescribes.

I can say to members that I suppose the best remedy would be to maintain order within the chamber, and that rests with the House itself. I can only continue to ask members --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): That's exactly what the New Democrats want -- that we'd be sort of silent and whimpering like children. They can abuse us all they want and you won't step in.

The Speaker: I would ask all members to respect the chamber and to try to exercise restraint, even when we have contentious issues on the floor of the House. Any more than that I don't believe any Speaker is capable of doing, and perhaps in future days we will have a better chamber.

It is time for petitions.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Point of privilege.

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga South.

Mrs Marland: My privilege concerns what has taken place in this House this afternoon. Mr Speaker, I think I'm one of the first to recognize the difficulty of your job. I also recognize the difficulty of the Premier's job, and I recognize the responsibility all of us have in this Legislature to perform our individual jobs.

What we have seen this afternoon is a matter of opinion depending on which side of the House we sit on, and I respect that, but the fact is that I would implore you to review the Hansard and, if possible, the electronic Hansard of what took place this afternoon. I feel that if we're going to have a fragile --

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): Point of privilege.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): But she's a very nice lady and I wouldn't interrupt her if I were you.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Privileges are intact.

Mrs Marland: You see, I can't even speak about a point of privilege without the Minister of Housing rattling away from her seat. I feel that I have a right to stand on a point of privilege without being interrupted by the Minister of Housing.

1500

I would suggest that all of us take a very close look at what happened this afternoon and all of us, respecting each other and respecting our individual responsibilities, try to assess how we can avoid this kind of chaos in this House again. As a member, I believe my privileges were affected this afternoon by what took place here. I think that if some good judgement would be considered by all members, including the people who apparently inflamed the situation, albeit on both sides --

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): Your solution is walking out of here. That's her solution. Is that yours?

Interjection: You can answer questions.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs Marland: Excuse me, perhaps we could avoid a recurrence of what took place this afternoon.

Hon Mr Wildman: On the point of privilege, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: In a moment I'll recognize the member for Algoma.

May I say to the member for Mississauga South that I truly appreciate her comments. I know all members try to conduct themselves in an honourable way. I realize that. Sometimes the emotional issue of the time intrudes upon that and causes us disorder. Perhaps on other occasions we will have a more orderly chamber. I recognize the member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: Thank you. On the point of privilege, Mr Speaker, I want to say that I agree completely with my friend the member for Mississauga South. I believe that the privileges of all members of the House were abused and obstructed today. I think all of us should reflect on the fact that members, whatever side they were on, decided, through hammering their desks, to make it impossible for the question period to proceed, then subsequently vacated their seats and then subsequently requested that they be given the right to place a supplementary question, even though the individual who wished to place that question was not in his seat at the time he should have been to place the question.

Mr Speaker, our privileges have indeed been abused, and abused in a most unsatisfactory and terrible situation. I agree with the member for Mississauga South. We should ensure that this kind of behaviour does not recur.

The Speaker: I'm not sure if we actually reached agreement on that, but I appreciate the contribution of the member for Algoma.

It's time for petitions.

PETITIONS

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

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

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rules changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

I have affixed my signature to that petition.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, support the health and safety concerns of the members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association and other police officers across the province.

"We therefore join with the spouses of Ontario police officers in petitioning Premier Bob Rae to invite representatives of front-line police officers to a meeting to discuss their legitimate concerns.

"Surely this government, which has in the past made health and safety one of its primary concerns, will exhibit the same concern about the lives of the men and women who police our communities as it does about people who work in factories, offices and elsewhere."

This is part of some 50,000 signatures that have been gathered from all across the province of Ontario, some of them from my riding of Nipissing, and I too have signed this petition.

STABLE FUNDING

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a number of petitions signed by people from Bruce county, from Grey county, from Wingham and from Renfrew. What the petition is saying is that two thirds of the farmers in Ontario do not belong to any of the farm organizations and they are asking that:

"The undersigned strongly object to the proposal that is being put forward to the Minister of Agriculture and Food empowering stable funding in the province of Ontario," and I affix my signature to it.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rule changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

I've signed my name.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, support the health and safety concerns of members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association and other police officers across the province;

"We therefore join with the spouses of Ontario police officers in petitioning Premier Bob Rae to invite representatives of front-line police officers to a meeting to discuss their legitimate concerns.

"Surely this government, which in the past made health and safety one of its primary concerns, will exhibit the same concern about the lives of men and women who police our communities as it does about people who work in factories, offices and elsewhere."

I'm proud to add my name to this petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I have a petition here signed by people in Amherstburg, La Salle, Harrow and Charing Cross, Blenheim and several areas in Essex county which reads:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to the proposed amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need for keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of the society in Ontario and will cause increased hardship on many families.

"The amendments included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I attach my signature.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, support the health and safety concerns of members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association and other police officers across the province.

"We therefore join with the spouses of Ontario police officers in petitioning Premier Bob Rae to invite representatives of front-line police officers to a meeting to discuss their legitimate concerns.

Surely this government, which in the past made health and safety one of its primary concerns, will exhibit the same concern about the lives of men and women who police our communities as it does about people who work in factories, offices and elsewhere."

It has my signature of support and is part of approximately 50,000 petitions today.

1510

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I have a second petition, briefly, if I may, Mr Speaker. It is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Her Majesty the Queen, at her coronation in 1953, took a personal oath to the people of Canada, and Canadians have always reciprocated with oaths of allegiance and service to the person of the sovereign;

"Whereas it is our right and duty to take oaths of allegiance and service in such form;

"Whereas Ontario regulation 144/91 made under the Police Services Act, 1990, denies Ontarians this right,

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, loyal to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council be requested to revoke Ontario regulation 144/91 and restore the traditional oath of service to Her Majesty for police personnel in Ontario."

That has my signature of support along with approximately 5,000 signatures and it is submitted to Her Majesty's loyal government in Ontario. God save the Queen.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads:

"Whereas Her Majesty the Queen, at her coronation in 1953, took a personal oath to the people of Canada, and Canadians have always reciprocated with oaths of allegiance and service to the person of the sovereign;

"Whereas it is our right and duty to take oaths of allegiance and service in such form;

"Whereas Ontario regulation 144/91 made under the Police Services Act, 1990, denies Ontarians this right,

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, loyal to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council be requested to revoke Ontario regulation 144/91 and restore the traditional oath of service to Her Majesty for police personnel in Ontario."

That's signed by G. Munroe of 25 Wood Street, J. Wood of Harbour Square, G. Anand of Yonge Street and a whole lot of other people, and by myself with enthusiasm.

LAW ENFORCEMENT

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from concerned residents of my riding which says:

"Whereas there has been a marked increase in crime, particularly violent crimes and crimes against women and children; and

"Whereas there has not been adequate support for law enforcement agencies on the streets and in the courts; and

"Whereas the morale of police forces in Ontario has been undermined,

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to join with the citizens of Ontario in demonstrating significant and strong support of our law enforcement agencies."

I have signed that as well, Mr Speaker.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition to wide-open Sunday business.

"I believe in the need for keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of the society in Ontario and will cause increased hardship on retailers, retail employees and their families.

"The proposed amendments to the Retail Business Holidays Act, Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I have affixed my signature to this, Mr Speaker.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Jean Poirier (Prescott and Russell): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rules changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

I have affixed my signature.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, support the health and safety concerns of the members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association and other police officers across the province.

"We therefore join with the spouses of the Ontario police officers in petitioning Premier Bob Rae to invite the representatives of front-line police officers to a meeting to discuss their legitimate concerns.

"Surely this government, which in the past made health and safety one of its primary concerns, will exhibit the same concern about the lives of the men and women who police our communities as it does about people who work in factories, offices and elsewhere."

I have signed this petition.

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, support the health and safety concerns of the members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association and other police officers across the province.

"We therefore join with the spouses of the Ontario police officers in petitioning Premier Bob Rae to invite the representatives of front-line police officers to a meeting to discuss their legitimate concerns.

"Surely this government, which in the past has made health and safety one of its primary concerns, will exhibit the same concern about the lives of the men and women who police our communities as it does about people who work in factories, offices and elsewhere."

This is signed by many constituents and citizens across this province. I affix my signature.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a petition which, without editorializing, is quite apropos on a day when the Premier walks out on us. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rules changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

I affix my signature.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Sorry to disappoint the member for Wellington and others, but the time allocated for the presentation of petitions has expired.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr White from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr44, An Act to revive Pinecrest Community Association

Bill Pr52, An Act to revive Grand River Home Improvements Building Products, Supplies & Services Ltd

Bill Pr59, An Act to revive Peterborough Social Planning Council

Bill Pr62, An Act to revive Fefferlaw Developments Limited

Bill Pr67, An Act to revive Lambda Chi Alpha Alumni Association of Toronto (Incorporated)

Bill Pr70, An Act respecting Nipissing University

Your committee recommends that Bill Pr51, An Act respecting the City of York, not be reported, it having been withdrawn at the request of the applicant.

Your committee further recommends that the fees, and the actual cost of printing, be remitted on Bill Pr59, An Act to revive Peterborough Social Planning Council.

Your committee further recommends that the fees, and the actual cost of printing, be remitted on Bill Pr70, An Act respecting Nipissing University.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed? Agreed.

1520

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Runciman from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 16th report.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Mr Runciman presents the committee's 16th report. Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Pursuant to standing order 106(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

PUBLIC BILLS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On a point of order, the member for Bruce.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I wish to rise today under the auspices of standing orders 67 and 69 to give you, through you to the Clerk, notice orally of our intention to file an amendment on the motion for third reading of Bill 40 when we get that far.

Whereas the standing orders are quite silent as to when the material may be filed and in what form, it says only that I cannot file it later than a certain date, and it does not say that I cannot do it orally. In fact, I intend to give you full oral notice today, and through you to the Clerk, of all of the aspects of this particular amendment.

I will begin now to read this amendment, and I wish you to give notice to the Clerk that in fact we will be filing this at an appropriate time. I ask you to listen now and receive notice, as is required by the standing orders of you and of the table.

I will move that the motion for third reading of Bill 40 be amended to add after the words now:

"That Bill 40, the Labour Relations and Employment Standards Law Amendment Act, 1992, be returned to the standing committee on resources development because the committee did not debate the essence of amendments, as evidenced by the following script used by the committee Chair, which reads as follows:

"Shall section 1 of the bill carry?

"Shall section 2 of the bill carry?

"Shall section 3 of the bill carry?

"Shall section 4 of the bill carry?

"Shall section 5 of the bill, as amended, carry?

"Shall section 6 of the bill carry?

"Shall the deferred PC amendment to section 7(2)(4) carry?

"Shall section 7 of the bill, as amended, carry?

"Shall section 8 of the bill, as amended, carry?

"Shall section 9 of the bill carry?

"Shall the Liberal amendment to section 10 of the bill, section 9.2 of the act, carry?

"Shall section 10 of the bill, as amended, carry?

"Shall the government amendment to section 11 of the bill, subsection 10(3) of the act, carry?

"Shall section 11 of the bill, 'as amended,' if applicable, carry?

"The Liberal motion to strike out section 12 of the bill is not in order.

"The PC motion to strike out section 12 of the bill is not in order.

"Shall the PC amendment to section 12 of the bill, subsection 11.1(1.1) of the act, carry?

"Shall the PC amendment to section 12 of the bill, subsections 11.1(2) to (7) of the act, carry?

"Shall the government amendment to section 12 of the bill" --

The Speaker: To the member for Bruce: I don't ever like interrupting the member for Bruce when he's in full flight, but if it will be of help to him, all he needs to do is to present his material in writing to the table at his earliest possible convenience and therefore it can be on the order paper. That's our procedure and I'm sure that the member can --

Mr Elston: No. It can be but it does not have to be, Mr Speaker. There is nothing that prevents me from giving oral notice of this under our standing orders. In fact, I wish to give you oral notice of this particular piece of information.

The Speaker: I'm reminded by the table that our practice in this regard is quite strict.

Mr Elston: It is not. Where?

The Speaker: I've asked the member to please comply --

Mr Elston: Show me the written precedents. I've looked and there are none.

The Speaker: It surely is not a great inconvenience. There's nothing out of order about him presenting the material which he wishes to have on the order paper in writing to the table so that it can be put on the notice paper, rather than occupying the time of the House with this matter at this point in our schedule, so that we can proceed.

Mr Elston: I would like to refer you, on the point of order, to sections 67 and 69, which say I only am required to give notice. It does not say it is written notice. It does not say it is oral notice. I have chosen an option, which is the oral notification of the table, through this place. It is my right as a member of this particular place to put a matter orally on the table for consideration. I cannot find any precedent that prevents me from giving oral notice of this particular motion. I ask that you allow --

The Speaker: To the member for Bruce, I realize that he doesn't want to be seen as debating a ruling by the Speaker. I would remind the member that -- without my being reminded by the table, I certainly recall that notices are to be written. They are to be written so that they then can be printed in the order paper.

While I appreciate his kindness in attempting to assist the business of the House by notifying us orally, that really isn't necessary. What would be helpful is, if he has a document all ready, that he indeed simply file it with the table. That will help us expedite our public business, and what he wishes to accomplish will have been accomplished; ie, the matter to which he refers will appear on the order paper, which I take it is what he wants to have happen at some point in time. The sooner he can file that with the table, the better.

Mr Elston: On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: You have been, with the great advice of numbers of authorities, holding us relatively to the word and the letter of the standing orders recently. I appreciate that it is your job to do that. What I am doing now is not precluded by these particular standing orders. I would like to just read for a moment exactly what it says under standing order 67, in the public bills section of our standing orders:

"No notice is required for motions for second or third reading of bills or for hoist motions, such motions being ancillary; but a motion for a reasoned amendment to a motion for second or third reading does require notice."

It does not state that it has to be written. It does not state that it has to be orally done. That, in my view, allows the option to go to the member whose privilege it is to alert the table and to alert this assembly to the business that is being proposed for them some time in the future.

There have been occasions when notice has been given orally. In fact, we changed the new rules really to give oral notice with respect to the motions for the time allocation. We now require us not to be notified as House leaders any more by the Orders and Notices papers, but by the intervention of some kind of message from the House leader, followed by a motion.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): There is no provision for oral notification on the time allocation.

Mr Elston: Basically, you told us that you were going to inform us when you were going to do it and then it would follow. But, Mr Speaker, there is nothing to preclude me, on the standing orders -- and I ask you to read this. I ask you to read it and I ask you to defer any business as a result until --

The Speaker: I understand the member for Bruce's point. Indeed, I'm familiar with the standing order. He's right, as he reads it, that it doesn't preclude him from presenting it orally. But I must remind the member that it is our practice to provide written notification to the table. It is that practice upon which predecessors of mine have relied and, of course, naturally I rely as well.

Mr Elston: Where is the ruling on this?

The Speaker: I'm more than pleased to discuss this at some length with the member at another time. I'm pleased to review the matter, as I always am. But I must say to the member that the practice of our assembly is very clear, and that's the practice I don't care to break at this particular point in time.

Hon Mr Cooke: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As I've heard it now, you've given a ruling three times on this. You have a choice here. Are we going to debate this all afternoon or are we going to get on with orders of the day?

The Speaker: We are not debating the Speaker's ruling. It is time for orders of the day.

1530

Mr Elston: Can I have a point of privilege, Mr Speaker?

The Speaker: If this is something a little different than what we've --

Mr Elston: It is something a little different. Mr Speaker, you have told me, on a point of privilege, that I cannot do what is not prevented by the standing orders. I would respectfully ask you, sir, to file with me, or at least to file in this House, your written reasons and tell me why it is and from whence all of this learned information comes so that when we misunderstand the rules again about giving notice and otherwise, we will be able to refer to the written material. Can you undertake to provide us with your written research?

The Speaker: In essence, what the member for Bruce is asking for is a ruling. Of course, I'm always pleased to assist members in any way to appreciate the rules, not just our standing orders but our practice. So I'd be pleased to accommodate the member.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

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

Consideration 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.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): Mr Chair, could the minister bring his staff on the floor?

The First Deputy Chair (Mr Dennis Drainville): Certainly. Please direct the staff.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Mr Chair, please, as the ministerial staff is coming, I understand that yesterday, the last day that this bill was debated, there was an agreement that the time would be evenly split, to be used as each caucus so wished. I recognize the motion that we are operating under and ask if it is most appropriate for that procedure that commenced last Thursday to continue on today, so that each caucus would have 45 minutes to deal with the sections in the way and manner it feels is most appropriate.

The First Deputy Chair: Is it agreed on all sides of the House that we split the time evenly three ways? Is there agreement? Agreed. We will have a free-ranging discussion, then, continuing on. Who would like to lead off the debate?

Mr Offer: The first comment that I wish to make in the time allocated deals with subsections 4(2) and (4) of the bill. I want to be very brief in this area, not because it isn't important but because of the very limited time that we have to deal with the matter.

As we all recognize, there is currently, under the Ontario Labour Relations Act, an exclusion to employees in agricultural and horticultural operations. Under Bill 40 that exclusion, which has operated in this province and has worked in this province for years, has been changed. It is now under Bill 40 that our agricultural and horticultural workers may find themselves within the purview of the Ontario Labour Relations Act, through regulation, at the whim of the Minister of Labour. This would, without question, curtail the rights of those involved in agricultural and horticultural operations from dealing with the issues which will affect them.

In this chamber and in committee, we have put forward an amendment which would repeal those provisions of Bill 40 and reinstate the status quo. In other words, we believe that the exclusion which has operated in the past and has worked successfully in the past in the area of agriculture and horticulture should continue, and if there are to be any changes in those areas by way of separate legislation, then it should not have any impact on this bill.

I have received a great many concerns from those involved in the agricultural sectors of our communities throughout the province. They are concerned that they may find themselves one day within the ambit of the Ontario Labour Relations Act for the first time in this province and that it will be done by regulation, without their being given the opportunity for input, without being given the opportunity of debate in this Legislature and without being given the opportunity for public consultation throughout the committee process. They are concerned; we are concerned.

Our amendment speaks to reinstating the status quo. If there are to be any changes, then let those changes result as a consequence of public consultation, and let there not be an opportunity for that Minister of Labour or any minister of labour to include agricultural and horticultural workers in the Ontario Labour Relations Act against their will without consultation, without any discussion, without the opportunity for debate. We have made those changes, those motions to make certain that the wishes of the agricultural workers in this province are listened to. By agreeing to those changes and reinstituting the status quo, we will do so.

I am disheartened to hear that the government will not be supporting this, that it will be turning its back on the concerns of the agricultural workers in this province. This is just the first of a series of concerns by many people throughout this province, concerns that they have with respect to what these changes mean to their way of life, to their being able to operate in this province, to their being able to continue to deal with the issues at hand in a way that is sensitive to their concerns.

This bill, these concerns, these amendments as proposed by the Minister of Labour, and the adamant refusal to listen to the concerns from the agricultural community, fly in the face of those concerns which I have heard throughout the province, especially from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

The First Deputy Chair: Does the minister have a response?

Mr Offer: I didn't ask for one.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): Go ahead.

Mr Offer: No, if you wish to make a response.

The First Deputy Chair: Just for the honourable member's information, I ask the minister after each person speaks in the House if he has a response. Does the minister have a response?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I'll wait for another speaker or two.

The First Deputy Chair: Further discussion? Questions?

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Yes, I would like to continue now. This is the second day of debate concerning Bill 40. We only have two days to discuss the 600-plus presentations that were presented this summer to the committee that sat for five weeks, and unfortunately two days does not do justice to the concerns and the many valid suggestions for amendments that were made by people in this province.

However, we shall endeavour to do the best we can to make sure that the views and the opinions of all people in this province are at least heard and as many of those views put on the public record as possible. However, it is unfortunate, and I have to say this again, that the input is not being given adequate consideration.

I spoke the other day concerning my private member's bill for mandatory secret ballot for certification, and I'd like to move now to section 26 of the bill. One of the amendments the Ontario PC party is moving, one of 94 amendments we have introduced, is to section 26.1 of the bill. We would like to amend that section of the bill by adding the following section:

1540

"26.1 Section 51 of the act is amended by adding the following subsection:

"Mandatory secret ballot

"(2) For a collective agreement to come into effect, a ratification vote by secret ballot must be taken among the employees in the bargaining unit defined by the agreement and more than 50 per cent of the ballots cast must have been cast in favour of the collective agreement."

Thus again, as I said a few days ago, we believe it's absolutely essential that in the process of unionization all workers have an opportunity to cast a secret ballot to determine and make known their wishes as to whether or not they want to join a union. We also support the need for a secret ballot vote on the issue of ratification. Again, more than 50 per cent of the ballots cast need to support the collective agreement. I will be introducing a further amendment in support of a secret ballot vote for a strike.

Our overriding concern on Bill 40 is the fact that we do feel it infringes the rights and freedoms of individuals, and these amendments that we have introduced in three areas are an attempt to ensure that people, men and women, throughout this province have an opportunity to clearly be informed on the issues of what it means to join a union if they're voting for or against certification; also what is contained within the collective agreement and what are the implications of a strike, and that after these people have been fully informed, they then have an opportunity to cast a ballot free of coercion or harassment from any other source.

We feel this is one method we can put forward that would protect the individual, because unfortunately Bill 40 takes away rights and freedoms. It really does much to facilitate unionization and also does much to put power in the hands of the union leaders.

We are very concerned about the impact on the individual. I've heard from many people in this province who are union members, or who are not yet union members but perhaps will be some day, and they are very concerned about the consequences of Bill 40 and the fact that their rights and freedoms have been removed.

I would hope that this government, which talks about being democratic, which talks about respecting the rights and freedoms of individuals, will support this amendment we have put forward.

The First Deputy Chair: Does the honourable minister have any response to make?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I'll wait for the first round, Mr Speaker.

The First Deputy Chair: Fine. Further discussions or questions?

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I wasn't going to speak to this particular bill, because Lord knows enough has been said on all sides of the fence with respect to this particular issue. However, as you will know, some of the public campaigns that have been launched, both against the bill and this party, and a lot of the misinformation that has been perpetuated out in the public quite frankly warrant some debate, some dialogue. I think that enough members who are in support of this particular legislation must stand up and address a number of the issues that have been raised and that are being perpetuated to the public through the media and through paid advertisements.

As I sit and watch some of the commercials and some of the literature that is being put forward by a number of the interests that would like to see this labour legislation derailed, it's misleading for me, to say the least. That's putting it in the mildest language I can find that is acceptable in this place and will prevent you from ruling me out of order if I use the kind of language that in my gut I feel should be used in retaliation to this kind of rhetoric.

I sat the other day and I watched this commercial that was played on television. I believe it's entitled "Kill the Bill," and then the glass crushes on the television screen and it has this number 40 and this number 40 is angular. If you watch this commercial, and obviously if you don't know anything about the specifics of the legislation and what the legislation is intended to do, you would immediately assume and you would be aghast and say: "My God, what is happening in this province? My God, that's why we have the kinds of problems we have," because it renders a sense of alienation.

What you have is an individual out there who's looking for work and his plant is being shut down and he's being terminated. Quite frankly, it lends itself to a certain amount of uncertainty, an uncertainty that is being felt by a number of people in our society. Basically, the caption says, "If you want to protect your job, if you want to protect working people, if you want to stand up and fight for working people, then what you must do is kill the bill. Kill Bill 40."

As I sit back and I watch that particular commercial, I can't help but think of all the working people it would take to generate enough money, working people who would have to contribute $5, $10, $1, $2 each across the province to hire the consultants, to hire the scriptwriters, to hire all the other people it would take and you would need to hire in order to be able to put together that kind of campaign, that kind of advertisement, quite frankly, that kind of propaganda. I sit back and I see all these working people it would take in order to do that.

All the working people I've spoken to, all the working people who find themselves out of work, haven't contributed to any such organization, haven't contributed to any cause, haven't gone out and hired any consultants. They haven't hired the spin doctors, the scriptwriters, all those individuals out there who are being paid enormous amounts of money to shape public opinion, and they're shaping public opinion in such an inflammatory, underhanded, seedy way that, quite frankly, that's what's contributing to the downgrading, to the collapse in the economy that has taken place.

Just to bring you back to the commercial, if working people aren't the people who are contributing to these campaigns and if they don't have the resources to hire the people -- the spin doctors and the scriptwriters and the cameramen and the actors -- to put together these campaigns and these advertisements and these commercials, then who is? The question is, who is?

I'll tell you who it is. It's the big corporate interests. It's the big business interests. Those are the people who can afford the spin doctors. Those are the people who can afford the media campaign. Those are the people who are forking out not $1, not $2, not $5 each, but are forking out tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars to run this campaign.

1550

That lends itself to another question, the question you have to ask yourself as you watch this commercial, as you sit there in your living room, out of work. You say: "Are these the interests, the big-money corporate interests, are these the people who want to help me out? Are these the people who want to put me back to work or are they just simply concerned with their own bottom line? Are they just simply concerned with preventing me from gaining some rights in the workplace, some rights for me to be able to defend myself, some rights for me to be able to stand up, for both myself and my family, in my workplace to ensure that their future is relatively secure? That's the question you have to ask yourself.

When you ask yourself this question in the face of the interests that are running the show, that are running the campaign, that are feeding into the media the fearmongering that's taking place out there, that is to me the most irresponsible act of all, because that is what undermines the structure of our economy. That chips away at the foundations that our economy is built on, and that's confidence. Quite frankly, when you erode confidence, that's when our economy and the ability of our people to carve out a living for both themselves and their family all begins to flounder. Quite frankly, that is the most irresponsible act of all.

As I sit back and I watch this particular campaign and the propaganda campaign around the OLRA, I have to ask myself, who is it? Who are those people who are pinning up the posters, who are writing the commercials, who are taking out the advertisements, who want to give themselves the semblance that they're really trying to protect me, the working guy who is out of a job? Who is it?

It's certainly not the people who want to help me out. That's the bottom line.

The First Deputy Chair: Does the honourable minister wish to make any comment?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Three brief comments, Mr Chair, the first dealing with the member for -- my colleague.

The First Deputy Chair Mississauga North? Downsview.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Downsview. Forgive me.

I think the point he raises is an extremely valid one, and I want to indicate to this House about the comments he makes about the kind of information and the kind of misinformation that have been out on this particular piece of legislation, that they have not been helpful, have not helped the process we're going through and have not been particularly good for the province of Ontario as well. It has probably done a lot more damage than anything that's in the legislation itself, and I think it's worth all of us taking note of that particular point.

To the member for Waterloo North, I guess the answer, to me at least, is relatively simple. I want her to know, and if she has read the current Labour Relations Act she will know, there is a lot of protection there in terms of any possibility of false votes or misinformation or what the situation may be.

Section 76, for example, says: "No trade union or council of trade unions shall call or authorize or threaten to call or authorize an unlawful strike and no officer, official or agent of a trade union or council of trade unions shall counsel, procure, support or encourage an unlawful strike or threaten an unlawful strike."

Section 77 deals in the same way with the management people.

Section 78, the last one I want to refer to, simply says: "No person shall do any act if" he "knows or ought to know that, as a probable and reasonable consequence of the act, another person or persons will engage in an unlawful strike or an unlawful lockout."

It doesn't give all of the coverage that the member is asking for herself, but clearly it says that there is a lot of protection in the process that exists right now.

The other point that I'm constantly amazed at: Most unions, certainly for strike votes, and for certification, already require a vote, and in the majority of cases this happens. But this has been the process, with the other protections written into it, that has been in place in Ontario since her government brought in these provisions. They didn't see any reason to change them in the 42 years they served in Ontario, and I see no reason to change them now as well.

To the member for Mississauga North, I want him to know that I reject out of hand his argument that somehow or other we're trying to mislead or pull something on the agricultural community. He should know better than that, because I think he knows that we've been engaging in extensive consultations with them and that they are part, along with union members and along with others, of the committee that we've set up to look at the whole question of how we deal with agriculture. It is a little bit different. If I had my own druthers -- he's right -- I'd much rather see them under the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

Well, he's throwing his hands out, but he's not being very forward with his comments when he says that we are not prepared to make arrangements with them. In the consultations, we have made it extremely clear that we agree with all of the areas they've recommended to us, and we've told them that we did have the concerns about this one sector. However, we have said that we will not make a final decision on that as yet, and we are prepared to go with their recommendations.

Why are the regulation-making powers, which is something else he refers to in Bill 40, being maintained? Well, we continue to await the further report of the Task Force on Agricultural Labour Relations. They're still discussing some of these issues. I think, in the line that he himself uses, we should hear everything they've got to say to us. The task force has asked for a further extension of time, and we expect to receive its further report soon. Maybe we should do it all and make whatever decision we're going to make without hearing this. Maybe that's what the member wants, if he's going to be honest with this House.

The LRA regulation-making provisions will be dealt with in the bill, and that will deal with agricultural labour relations. They may be repealed in whole or maintained to a limited extent, depending on the scope of the agricultural bill. Since we haven't yet received the recommendations of the task force and haven't yet decided on the form, the legislation that will deal with agricultural workers, we won't deal with the repeal of the LRA provisions until these other matters have been considered.

But I have made it clear in this House, and I want to point out to the member -- I'm not sure it makes any difference whether I tell him or not. We've pointed out in this House and we've pointed out to the agricultural community that's meeting with us as well that we will look at all of their recommendations and we will not proceed with a final bill until we've had the last sessions with them when they come in with the final report. I don't know what more he wants, other than to say, "Well, we don't need any more talks with them, even though you've asked them for those consultations." I don't find that a very positive question or position to take.

The First Deputy Chair: Are there any other people who wish to discuss or ask questions? The honourable member for Mississauga North.

1600

Mr Offer: I'll be dealing with a few other sections. I think the comments just made by the Minister of Labour are indeed the reason why so many agricultural workers in this province are alarmed. All they want is that, as they deal with these particular issues, the status quo be maintained -- the rules that they have operated under for many, many years. Bill 40 changes that, without any question. The last comments by the Minister of Labour do nothing but heighten the concerns of agricultural workers across this province.

I would like to deal with that particular section of the bill which is, without question, the taking away of rights of workers in this province. That speaks to section 7, dealing with the issue of full-time and part-time workers. It's an area which, in our very shortened hearings that took place, was a matter which was brought forward. As we will know, under the Labour Relations Act as it exists now, full-time and part-time workers cannot be combined into one unit because the board has stated that they hold a different community of interests, as they refer to it, and as such, they have always ruled against combining full-time and part-time workers. Under Bill 40, full-time and part-time workers can be combined if there is, as a result of a vote, 55% of the combined group.

Here are the concerns which I and my party have. Let us use the example of a group of workers in this province, 100 workers, 55 of whom are full time, 45 of whom are part-time. Under this bill, if all the full-time workers wish to be combined with the part-time workers, then it will happen. If none of the part-time workers wish to be combined, then notwithstanding their wishes it will happen; there still will be that combination of full-time and part-time workers.

We've had some discussion about this. As a result, I have proposed an amendment. I believe there are workplaces where the interests of full-time and part-time workers may, in their opinion, be the same. I also believe there are workplaces in this province where full-time and part-time workers do not believe their interests are the same. I believe it should be up to the workers of this province to make that decision. It should not be a bunch of politicians in some committee room saying that in all cases, in all aspects, in all areas, full-time and part-time workers always have the same interests, because we know that sometimes the workers believe, for their own reasons, that they do not have the same interests, and they want those wishes to be honoured.

So we have proposed an amendment. The amendment simply reads as follows: that in the event there is a workplace with both full-time and part-time workers and in the event there is a request to combine the full-time and part-time workers, then the combination should only take place if there is a majority in both the part-time and a majority in the full-time working sector who wish to be combined.

I was very upset at the committee stage when the government members voted against allowing the workers to express their own opinions, as to whether they want to be combined, in a free secret vote. I was very upset that they turned their back on the workers in the part-time and full-time sectors in this crucial area.

We are going to once more bring forward that amendment. It is an amendment in an area where, without question, the rights of workers have been taken away. We believe there are occasions where full-time and part-time workers should be combined, where the old rules of community of interests may not be appropriate, but let that decision rest with the workers of this province. Let those decisions rest with the part-time and full-time workers of this province, not with the Ontario Labour Relations Board, not with elected representatives in a committee room at Queen's Park. Let the workers decide how they wish to be governed, in the way they wish to governed, in the manner they wish to be governed.

The First Deputy Chair: Would the minister like to make any response?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I'll wait till the next round.

The First Deputy Chair: Any other debate or discussion? The honourable member for Waterloo North.

Mrs Witmer: I'm going to speak now to section 32 of the bill. Our preference would be that this entire section would be eliminated. This would remove the ban on replacement workers from the bill. This was certainly another one of the more controversial aspects of the bill.

However, before I began my discussion, I'd just like to read from a letter I received yesterday from a constituent in Waterloo. He writes to Mr Rae:

"If you truly believe that the social charter should include the right to work, then why are you condemning workers in Ontario, or anywhere else in Canada for that matter, who refuse to obey big unions when returning back to their workplace during a labour conflict?

"The closing statements of your October 26 swan song were strong and clear, 'Let's get people back to work.' If you sincerely mean that, I implore you to reject your labour reform proposals for Ontario.

"Please advise as soon as possible how you will approach the labour crisis of this province. For the love of Canada and Ontario, do the right thing."

I've quoted from that letter because I want to tell you that in the last week or so I have received numerous phone calls, faxes and letters from individuals throughout the province who are very concerned about Bill 40. They really are not aware, however, that by next week this will be law. They still think there is an opportunity for discussion and for debate. Unfortunately, this individual was misled, because in a response that he received from the minister on September 21, the minister says to him:

"Thank you for your letter re Bill 40.

"There will be sufficient opportunity for the government as well as the opposition parties to move amendments to the bill. Please be assured that your views and the views of all interested parties will be taken into account during consideration of any and all amendments to this legislation."

I would have to say that this individual and thousands of others throughout this province have been deceived, because there has not even been an opportunity for us to get all of our 94 amendments on the public record, and I think it's very unfortunate that we are not able to reflect the views of all Ontarians in our discussion.

However, getting back to section 32 of the bill, the ban on replacement workers, the proposal that the government is suggesting is going to tilt the economic balance in favour of unions. The limitations on the number of employees who can perform struck work will impede the ability of an employer to continue the operation of a plant and to fill orders to maintain customer goodwill. This change is going to change a strike, not into a means of communication, but it's going to now become an economic blockade.

Furthermore, employees are not going to be able to cross a picket line any more to return to work, even if they do not agree with their union representatives. This is an infringement on their rights and their freedoms to work and, as the miner Jim O'Neill said concerning the strike in Yellowknife, "It is important the country understand these people who went back to work were just exercising their democratic right."

Now that people can no longer cross the picket line, I wonder what the government's going to think about when you take a look at the single parent who's struggling to raise his or her family and who needs to go back to work to earn money to support that family. By preventing this individual or any individual from crossing a picket line and going to work if that is his or her choice, this is a significant intrusion into employee freedom and employee rights. These people no longer have any rights or freedoms.

The government is telling us that the ban on replacement workers is needed to reduce picket line violence, yet we all know that collective bargaining in this province is not characterized by conflict as it was in Quebec. In this province, 95% of all collective agreements are settled without a strike, and violence on the picket line is rare as opposed to common.

Let's take a look at Quebec, because Quebec was different, Quebec is different. Quebec has had more strikes or lockouts than Ontario in 12 of the 14 years since Quebec's anti-scab law was implemented in 1978, even though Quebec has fewer people and Quebec has a smaller economy. Ontario, fortunately, has had fewer strikes due to a balance between the employee's right to go on strike and the employer's right to continue operation during a strike. Now that balance is being totally destroyed.

1610

Let's take another look at Quebec. The number of person-days lost due to strike or lockout in Quebec grew from 1.3 million in 1977, before the anti-scab law was introduced, to 4.1 million in 1980. Over the same period, the number of person-days lost due to strike or lockout in Ontario only grew from 1.1 million to 1.6 million. If you take a look at the Quebec experience, it is anticipated that once Bill 40 is implemented in the province of Ontario, the number of person-days lost due to strike or lockout is going to increase in this province.

Furthermore, I think it's important to know that the primary basis upon which the Conseil du patronat dropped its challenge to the Quebec legislation was the 13 years of procedural wrangling it took to have the Conseil status to challenge the legislation work its way through the courts. This is hardly the employer endorsement of the legislation that this government claims. It's false. In fact, they came and they told us that personally during the hearings.

I want to tell you that it's been anticipated that Bill 40 may actually increase violence because of the right of the employee to refuse to do work, because strikers' anger is going to intensify since they know that employees working during a strike or a lockout could have said no. We all know that the 60% strike vote that is required can be fulfilled at any time prior to the commencement of bargaining.

Let's take a look at the impact of the ban on the replacement worker. We heard from almost every group that made presentations this summer about the severe economic impact. What did the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association tell us? They told us that this bill fails to recognize the independent nature of today's economy, where businesses are largely dependent on just-in-time supply and delivery of goods and services which were frequently sole-sourced through long-term contracts.

Over 80% of the Canadian automotive parts business is with the United States and operates on a just-in-time basis. If they fail to deliver their product and they shut down an automobile assembly line at the cost of millions of dollars and impacting thousands of people, the business is going to be lost, most likely for ever. Even more importantly, they told us they won't get a chance to quote on future business unless they can demonstrate a plan to assure continuity of supply under all conditions.

Of course, that's what happened in Quebec when the replacement ban was introduced on workers. They have built other plants south of the border and they have built other plants in the province of Ontario in order to have a secondary source of supply to fulfil their contractual obligations, and that's what's going to happen here. You're going to see people moving south of the border or to other provinces where they don't have this similar ban, or they're simply going to phase out their operation and they're going to move elsewhere. They cannot afford to stay here.

What about the retailers? What did they tell us about the ban on replacement workers? They indicated that provisions which inhibit the continuance of operations mean that retailers lose revenue, customer loyalty and ultimately the ability to remain viable. This is particularly true for grocers, because their customers cannot postpone food purchasing and wait for the resumption of the store's operation.

In questioning one of the grocers who appeared before the committee, who had been involved in a strike, he told us that it took one year before his business was back to where it had been before the strike. There is no longer any customer loyalty. I can tell you, if there is a ban on replacement workers if there are strikes, we're going to see some of our small grocery stores totally disappear.

What else did the retailers tell us? They told us that many of the food products carried in grocery stores are extremely perishable and cannot be held for future sale should a strike occur. The government has not even considered that fact.

In addition, the government has not considered the fact that many independent grocers are the sole source of groceries in small communities. What happens to the people in small communities if there is a strike, even a strike of short duration? I can tell you, they are going to be prevented access to the daily food requirements of their families.

These are the types of issues and concerns that were raised about the ban on replacement workers which this government -- and I see you laughing. You have no concern for people in the small towns and isolated areas of this province, none whatsoever. A strike could effectively close the stores, and people would have no access to groceries, or drugs as well, for that matter, in small communities.

What about the impact on the newspaper industry? Again, this government has failed to recognize the implications of the ban on the replacement worker. The proposed limit on the use of replacement workers during a strike would make it almost impossible to publish a paper.

Quite simply, you know that newspapers cannot stockpile news and obviously readers are going to turn to other sources, either print information or they're going to turn to the electronic media. Again, it is very costly for the newspaper industry to reclaim not only their lost readers but also their lost advertisers.

I think what I've indicated here is that this ban on replacement workers is going to have a severe economic impact on people in this province. There could be job loss. There will certainly be loss of investment, because this section of the bill is one of the sections that investors from outside this province are not prepared to cope with.

There's also a human factor. There's the possibility that people in isolated communities will not have access to drugs or groceries. That's never been even considered by this government.

I want to conclude the remarks on that section for the time being and make reference to the Yellowknife strike. I was quite concerned when the minister indicated that we'd be better off in this province if there was no automatic right for a company to use replacement workers. There was almost an assertion that that tragic act seemed to justify his new labour legislation and provided some leverage.

This government has argued that the introduction of replacement workers into a company is a cause of violence and that if you eliminate the right of companies to hire replacement workers you eliminate the cause of violence.

To me, the suggestion that the use of replacement workers is the cause of violence is a very serious distortion of cause and effect, because violence is caused by striking union members who refuse to obey the most fundamental laws of this country. I do not believe anyone has the right to use force or violence against someone else except under circumstances such as self defence. Anything else is totally unwarranted and deserves prosecution as a moral and legal wrong.

The implication of the government's position that violence is somehow justified and understandable and that therefore replacement workers must be eliminated, to me that's totally wrong. I'm very concerned about the statement that was made in justifying the ban on replacement workers by the minister, because to me, violence is always wrong no matter what. Nobody has the right.

The First Deputy Chair: Does the honourable minister wish to reply?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I'll wait till the round is completed.

1620

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): The critic for the Conservative Party talks about the impact on just the one side when it comes to replacement workers. Obviously, she hasn't talked to too many of the workers who have been affected by other people who have taken their jobs when they're on a legal strike. How do you answer some of these people? How do you talk to your neighbour who's taken your job because you're out there on the picket line trying to get a decent wage and decent working conditions?

I truly believe, as the minister does and as this government does, that a lot of violence will be eliminated on the picket line when people are not allowed to take other people's jobs when they are legally out on strike. I think that's a very important piece of this legislation.

There are some other points. We talk about part-time workers. I just want to read a little bit from a letter I received from a worker. The worker says:

"I have been employed in the retail industry for the past 20 years, both full-time and part-time, in independent and chain stores. If all of us Ontarians want to compete at a national and international level, then we must upgrade our existing labour laws so that we are all the same, with fairness and justice in the workplace."

The critic for the Liberals thinks it's funny when someone gets up here and says we have to have fairness and equity in the workplace, that people don't have to be treated differently.

"The right to organize is an essential factor of all working people. If this right is denied, we are depriving working people, especially minorities and newcomers to this country."

Another issue mentioned here today is workers who are out on strike and want to return to the workplace. The Liberals and Tories seem to think it's not very democratic and not very fair if those workers can't go in to work while there's a strike. Just for their information, the fact of the matter is that workers in the union have a democratic vote to decide whether to go on strike. They also vote on whether they return to work when they want to ratify the collective agreement. So they do have a vote, and the majority rules in both instances. They vote to go on strike and they vote to return to work.

Members keep making all these statements about workers wanting to go back to work if they choose to, even though they're out on a legal strike and the majority says, "We're staying out on strike until we get a decent collective agreement." Are they saying that if the majority of workers says, "We want to stay out on strike" and the minority says, "We choose not to stay out" -- that's really what you're saying. I think you should decide one way or the other, but it is done under a democratic system with a vote.

Also, there's the issue dealing with agriculture. The Minister of Labour put together a task force to deal with the issues pertaining to agriculture, because the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Agriculture and Food agreed there is a uniqueness in the agricultural community and the same rules could not apply or would not necessarily work in the agricultural industry as they would in an industrial industry.

As a matter of fact, the task force had people from the agricultural community, workers in agriculture, Ministry of Labour people and Ministry of Agriculture and Food people. All the recommendations at this point are pretty well agreed to by the Ministry of Labour. The member gets up here and starts saying things, and I don't think he really knows for sure; I don't think he's talked to the right people on that particular issue. Certainly this task force with farmers' representation on it is coming back with advice to the Ministry of Labour to deal with that particular issue.

I'd like to also raise one more point. I think we should make it clear here, because we've heard it so many times, especially from the Liberal government over there -- I'm sorry, the past government; the only time it really put any good legislation in was when we had the accord in 1985 and forced it to do it.

The fact of the matter is, we talk about this legislation, the anti-replacement worker legislation. I've heard them get up in the Legislature and in other areas and say it's the wrong time. They had the opportunity to do it then and they refused to do it. I was here in 1985, and we asked the Liberals to implement that when the times were really booming in 1985. They refused to do it then and now they're saying it's the wrong time. But it didn't take the Liberal government too long to put things down and leave us with a nice little deficit to try to cover up and to try to straighten out some of its errors.

Anyhow, thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to make a couple of points of clarification here. We'll give some other members a chance to speak on this issue.

The First Deputy Chair: Does the honourable minister wish to make any comments?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Some brief comments. I thank the member for Essex-Kent, and I think it might be worth adding that this party, the members and the committees we set up, can hold views themselves, can listen to people and accept those views even though they may not jibe entirely with the views they have on any particular issue. That's something I think the member for Mississauga North hasn't understood, or can't understand.

On the full- and part-time issue, the Liberal amendment would require the OLRB to use a vote to test for majority support among full- and part-time employees separately, prior to combining the employees in one bargaining unit. I don't know whether he reads the debate from the previous day or not, but it's almost the identical question that one of his own members asked and that we answered in some detail. I don't think it matters to him, because it's not really a serious exercise he's going through.

This Liberal amendment assumes that full- and part-time employees have different interests and should continue to be treated differently. This would continue to make organizing a less meaningful option for part-timers. I know he agrees that that would be a good idea, but part-timers are particularly vulnerable and unlikely to be interested in organizing where they're unable to organize with their full-time colleagues. That's a fact of life.

All other jurisdictions in Canada -- a point I made with his colleague -- and the federal government allow part-timers and full-timers to organize together, and this is the area where Ontario has some catching up to do. He can jiggle and laugh all he wants, but he's raising an issue where we're the only province left that doesn't allow it, and you really have to ask questions about that kind of position.

The other problem with the motion is that it would require mandatory representation votes in order for full- and part-timers to be combined. This is likely to prolong organizing campaigns and result in increased employer interference.

The determination, I can tell him, of appropriate bargaining units is a matter for the labour board. The member will know that existing LRA section 6(1) already allows the board to conduct a vote on this issue, and we have not amended that provision of the act.

Once again to the member for Waterloo North, I think it's important to spend a bit of time on the replacement worker issue. I can't help but comment first that, provided we have this in place in Ontario, a province of about 10 million people -- we have it in place in Quebec now, a province of 6.5 million people or better, and it's one of the cornerstones of the BC legislation which just came in today -- we're going to have between 19 million and 20 million of the people in Canada covered by this kind of legislation. With all the rhetoric that's been built up against this particular issue, it would appear that an awful lot of people in Canada think there's more than a little bit of merit in this issue, which is one that gets over some of the nastier provisions that are possible in labour-management relations in our country.

1630

I think it's important to put what has been the impact of anti-scab legislation on strike activity in Quebec. Why are there more strikes in Quebec than Ontario? A large number of variables have an effect on strike activity, of which legislation is simply just one. The objective of the Quebec law, as with Ontario's, is to reduce picket line violence, and I can say that there is little doubt whatsoever that this objective has been achieved in the province of Quebec.

There were more strikes in Quebec than Ontario before the replacement worker legislation was introduced, as there have been afterwards, so it is simplistic and incorrect to suggest that this has something to do with the law. In fact, when a comparison is made between the 10-year period before Quebec law was introduced and the years following its introduction, there have been improvements in a number of areas. The average number of person-days lost due to strikes fell after the law was introduced. The average number of days lost as a percentage of all time worked also fell, as did the number of employees involved in stoppages. There was a slight increase in the annual average number of work stoppages, but this must be considered in the context of three of these other improvements.

The president of Conseil du patronat du Québec, Ghislain Dufour, has conceded that the law has reduced the number of lengthy disputes and helped negotiations in some cases. He has also been quoted as saying that "the last strike at Canada Post had us questioning our position, which was one of opposition about the law on replacement workers." I think there are some significant comments there.

I think it's also important to point out that the government has gone to considerable lengths to design a replacement worker provision that will focus on flashpoints in the collective bargaining process. While similar to the Quebec law, it is a made-in-Ontario model which in fact leaves employers with more latitude to continue to operate during a work stoppage than the law in the province of Quebec.

We know that the use of certain types of replacement workers causes violence on picket lines and the new law will focus on these particular areas while leaving the vast majority of employers unaffected. As the member herself has said, 95% of all agreements are settled without work stoppages. Where there are work stoppages, employers who continue operating mostly rely on site supervisors and other on-site employees from outside the struck bargaining unit. Bill 40 would in no way affect this practice. If Bill 40 had been in effect in 1991, only 19 employers in total would have been affected. Only a handful of these would have been in the manufacturing sector, and none in Ontario's auto parts sector would have been affected, in spite of all the talk about that area.

We have consulted extensively in developing the replacement worker provision and are confident that the result will address the real problems without hampering the operations of the large majority of employers in Ontario who care enough about good working relationships to understand the problems that the use of certain kinds of replacement workers can cause. I think the case is overwhelming.

I just want to end with the few comments the member raised about the danger to the small grocery store in her own riding. To begin with, it's an area -- and I have no hesitation in saying that I think it's one of the areas we're looking at that deserves better treatment -- that is not very well organized and is likely because of the size and the type of operations and the difficulties in many cases in organizing to remain one of the less organized areas.

It's an area where, if she uses her own figure of 95% of settlements being decided without a work stoppage, it is likely to be so minimally affected that it really raises the question of why this becomes a centrepiece of some of the argument. Indeed, the fact that the provision is there is very likely, in the very few cases where there might possibly be this kind of problem, to make both sides, union and management, take a second look at it and see if they can't reach an agreement, rather than having to go the strike route. So I just don't think the argument holds much weight whatsoever, and of course I reject it.

The First Deputy Chair: Further debate?

Mr Offer: Before I go on to the section I would like to deal with, I think it's important to speak briefly about the comments made in the area of part-time and full-time workers. Mr Chair, with the greatest of respect, it is as if you speak to a wall when you speak to the issue of part-time and full-time workers.

The issue we have brought forward time and time again is not that part-time and full-time workers should not be able to combine, but that their combination should only take place if a majority of the part-time workers and a majority of the full-time workers in a workplace wish to be combined. Simply, if the workers, the men and women in the workplace, wish to be combined, if they believe they have the same interests, then let that happen. But let it not be deemed by any Legislature that in all cases it must happen. The NDP government just turns its back continually on the rights of workers to express their own opinions as to whether they do or do not wish to be combined.

I wish to speak to section 33 of the bill, which speaks about repealing section 75 of the act. I will be brief in this matter, because this is another example of the NDP government taking away the rights of workers.

What does section 75 of the act say? It says, and I will paraphrase, that where a worker is engaging in a lawful strike and wishes to go back to work within six months from the commencement of the strike, then indeed he or she must be taken back to work; the right of a worker to look at his or her own family during a strike and to decide what is in his or her best interests and to make that choice.

What has the NDP government done with respect to section 75 that I have read, which has been in the Labour Relations Act for many years? What has the NDP government done with respect to the right of a worker during a lawful strike if he or she wishes to return to work, for whatever reasons he feels are important? The NDP government, in Bill 40, has repealed that right. No longer will a worker in this province who is on lawful strike have the right, within that time period of six months, to go back to his job. The NDP government has repealed, has stripped, has taken away the rights of the men and women in this province who are on strike, for their own reasons, to return to work.

The First Deputy Chair: I take it that the minister would rather defer. That's fine.

1640

Mrs Witmer: I'd just like to respond briefly to the response by the minister concerning the impact on the individuals living in small communities who because of the replacement worker ban might be prohibited from accessing the grocery store or the drugstore. I'm pleased that the minister did recognize that there might be a concern in that area.

I guess, however, that's been the disappointment in the discussion about this bill. The government has never taken the time to acknowledge what the impact of this legislation might be, and this is one of the areas of impact that should have been considered. There's never been an opportunity to look at the economic impact. There's never even been a demonstrated need for this bill.

What the government has attempted to do is to introduce a bill, Bill 40, that will facilitate unionization and try to cover all sectors of the Ontario economy. It's unfortunate there was not a sector-by-sector study of the impact of this legislation on each sector. Certainly one of the sectors that's going to be hardest hit by this bill is the retail sector. I'm concerned that the government did not allow sufficient time for that type of study, but I'm at least pleased that the minister recognizes that there might be some unforeseen consequences.

I'd like to move on to section 32. As I said, our preference would have been to eliminate the entire section relating to the replacement worker ban. I'd like to speak as well to the amendment we would like to introduce that would allow bargaining unit employees to cross a picket line. This of course is within section 32.

As I indicated before, employees at the present time have the freedom of choice as to whether to strike when the union leadership calls a strike. I believe this is an essential right which workers have to protect their own individual interests. They have the right to decide whether to strike or to work.

If, as we all know sometimes happens, employees feel that their union leaders are out of touch or that they are acting unreasonably, or if they feel they simply cannot afford to strike or do not support the union's position on philosophical grounds, they can vote with their feet and stay at or return to work. That is a right employees presently have and that is a right we feel employees need to continue to have: the freedom to choose whether they want to cross the picket line and go to work or join the strike.

The legislation should not take away this existing fundamental right of an individual of a bargaining unit to refuse to engage in a strike and to come to work. Employees should always have the final say on whether and when to call an end to their economic sacrifices, and it is a sacrifice when an employee decides to support a strike.

Furthermore, I believe that the employee's right to return to work at the present time promotes the union's responsiveness in bargaining and continues to give that assurance that the union serves the role of agent of the employees and not the reverse.

Furthermore, at a time in this province when economic conditions are poor and the need for employment income is great, restrictions on an employee's choice to earn income are contrary to the general purpose of labour legislation, which really should be to enhance the freedom of employees to make choices concerning their employment situations. We will be introducing this amendment, which would allow bargaining unit employees to cross a picket line.

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): This piece of legislation, not unlike any other piece of legislation, is subject to what I would very much call predictive opinion. That's the opinion as to how the legislation will work when it's finally enacted and that examines, of course, the cause-and-effect relationships that will exist as a result of any piece of legislation.

I think it's in order to congratulate some in the business community who obviously have, in a number of successful attempts, confused people and managed to convince people that notwithstanding some of the excellent provisions contained within the legislation, overall it's a bad piece of legislation. I think that's most unfortunate.

I have witnessed on many occasions, as I happened to sit on the committee and travel throughout the province as well as attend the public hearings right here in this building, individuals who have come and put forth their case and spoken mostly of myth rather than fact. I just want to relate one story to you that I think really illustrates why the people in this province and this country are in fact much different from our neighbours to the south of the border and why we still have an economy here, because some would have you believe that once this piece of legislation passes all the businesses in this great province of ours will (1) come to a grinding halt and (2) close their doors and move south of the border.

A representation was made to the committee by the Rubber Association of Canada. After they made their presentation, I spoke to one of the representatives of the Rubber Association of Canada, because as you well know, there are a number of rubber industries in my town of Kitchener. Because it was a private conversation, I won't relay the individual's name, but he told me this: He said that the company he worked for is in the process of closing down one of its operations here in Ontario. As a result, they're beefing up an operation in Texas. In fact, they are beefing up the operation in Texas to the extent that they decided to gut the entire plant. They went out and bought the latest technology that's available to people producing this type of product and put this new equipment and machinery in the plant.

In doing that, they had to lay off their workforce for six months. They not only laid off their present workforce, but when they recalled they almost doubled the size of the workforce. But what they discovered, having brought all these people back into this new Texas plant, where by the way the minimum wage today is $1.60 per hour, is that the workforce couldn't operate the machinery because over 60% of the workforce they planned to have working in this particular plant are functionally illiterate. They couldn't read. Nor could they write.

He relayed that to me in terms of comparing it with the Ontario workforce, where we don't have the severity of that problem, as well as looking at the skills that the workers here in Ontario have as opposed to Texas. What originally was supposed to be very much a cost-effective, cost-reduction exercise turned out to be much more expensive than any of them planned, and now they find that they're in the process of educating a workforce. They couldn't obviously rely on the assumption that the workforce that was there did have the necessary skills in order to perform the jobs adequately.

I think that speaks volumes to the big difference between living here in Ontario as opposed to any state south of the border. I think it speaks volumes to the way workers in this province are treated, perhaps more as assets, rather than in other parts of the globe where they're, in my view, treated more as an expense item.

When we put all the rhetoric aside, after the GST and after the trade agreement, and particularly the value of the Canadian dollar, which the 22 manufacturers in my area of the province have told me is one of the worst problems they're facing, I can't believe that having been through all that coming at us at once, we are now going to lose -- take your pick; we've heard the figures 250,000, 300,000 jobs or 500,000 jobs -- that we're going to lose that number of jobs, that we're going to lose any jobs because we simply have decided to re-examine the rules.

We've decided to rewrite the rule book on how employees and employers are going to relate to each other in the future. That's essentially what we're talking about. I know the argument has been made that this makes us not as competitive as some other parts of the plant. Let me tell you that a lot of factors go into competitiveness. This, in my view, is an important part, but in the overall scheme of things it is a very tiny part of what makes a competitive situation. Surely to goodness we shouldn't get into a bid war where we reduce ourselves to the lowest common denominator of any other country, because in a situation like that we can only lose.

1650

The First Deputy Chair: Does the honourable minister wish to make any comments?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Just briefly. Once again, the member for Kitchener indicates an understanding of some of the issues we're trying to deal with. This is as provocative as I will get, but I wish there was the same level of understanding across the way -- there certainly isn't -- on many of these issues.

I want to say to the member for Waterloo North with regard to the issue that is constantly being raised over there as to whether or not there was enough study, that I will just repeat to her, as I have before, that we have been almost two years since we started the process on this legislation with the original Burkett report, that we have gone through 550-some sessions across the province of Ontario and that we have had all the major umbrella groups and organizations that banded together to fight the legislation in as well, not once or twice but three times, at the Ministry of Labour. I don't know of a bill where there has been the kind of study and input into it that we've had into this particular piece of legislation.

I want to tell her also that in terms of replacement workers and workers being able to go back into their own plant while a situation exists, this was an area we gave a lot of serious thought to. It bothered some of our members and we discussed it at some length. I want to tell her also that one of the experiences I've experienced personally in my own constituency is how deep and bitter and divided and long the original strike that established the big Steel local in my community, 1005, was and the splits that occurred there between the people who stayed in, when they fought for their first contract, and the people who went out, and how 20 and 30 years later some of the bitterness still existed in those forces.

It's part of the whole replacement worker issue that we've talked about. I don't think we gain anything by weakening that provision. Once again, I report the success in the province of Quebec; there's no question about the success down there. Now it's also one of the provisions in BC legislation that has just been moved in that province.

I want to say also, in response to the member for Mississauga North on repealing section 75, that I said earlier, I think, that the bill focuses on the major cause of confrontation and lasting bitterness in the workplace following labour disputes. In particular, the changes would restrict the use of new hires, the use of whom are known to cause some of the problems.

I should repeat that there are very few disputes in which the restricted employees are used, because most employees rely on supervisors and managers. In 1991 only seven disputes involved the use of returning strikers.

The existing section 75 does allow strikers to return to work within six months after the start of the strike, but it fails to provide any statutory guidelines on the contentious issue of return to work after a strike or lockout. The member will know that this return-to-work protocol is often an issue that prevents the end of a lockout or strike even after all contract issues are settled.

Bill 40 provides, I think, a fair, seniority-based rule that would apply where the parties are unable to settle their own return-to-work protocol. It allows an employer to deviate from the seniority rule where certain employees are necessary for the startup of operations, and I think that's a valid argument. We have repealed the six months' right to return because it does conflict with the replacement worker provisions.

I think that's a valid answer to that in spite of getting started off on the wrong line initially. That's, I guess, just an indication that some of us at least can, from time to time, make mistakes and acknowledge them.

The Second Deputy Chair (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Further debate?

Mr Offer: Just in response to the last comment by the Minister of Labour, no matter how you slice it, you have taken away the right of workers, who may have held a job for 20 and 30 years, in a strike situation to return to work because they believe it is their right and their choice, based on the things and factors that are important to them, many of which may be family matters. You have made the workers of this province in a strike situation replacement workers of their own jobs. You have taken away their rights.

I would like to speak to a matter which I recognize was brought up earlier on Thursday, and that deals with the members of professions, section 7(4) of the bill. As I see Bill 40, it contains architecture, dentistry, engineering, land surveying and law. An amendment has been proposed to include nursing, as a result of a great many representations on this issue.

I recognize that the government, during the clause-by-clause deliberation of this bill, refused to respond to the amendment as to whether it agreed or disagreed with the inclusion of nursing in section 7(4) of Bill 40. I have read the Hansard and have seen what purports to be a reason by the minister. It falls far short of any viable reason as to why the nursing profession in this province should not fall within section 7(4) as it so wishes.

I would like to remind the Minister of Labour, as I, I must say, suspected that the government would not respond to the amendment in clause-by-clause, and it would not respond, because it had every intention of voting against it but was not going to inform the members of the committee until we got into this stage of the proceeding, I proposed an amendment on behalf of my party, not an amendment to the bill but a motion. The motion said: "Set up a task force. Set up a task force with Ministry of Labour officials and representatives of the Ontario Nurses' Association. Set up a task force to look at the issues with respect to including nurses under section 7(4)."

Mr Minister, I know you were not at any of the hearings, but I would like to report to you that by a recorded vote of my motion, every one of your members, every one of the government members, voted against the setting up of a task force to deal with the issue of nursing. That is a matter of a recorded vote, Mr Minister. It is a matter of public record. It is a matter that everyone is fully aware of, it is a matter which, Mr Minister, I believe you should be aware of, and I believe that this matter could be resolved while we are dealing with this bill, even in the shortened period we have at our disposal. This is a matter which has been known to the ministry for some time. Representations have been made. Positions have been made clear and the reasons therefor.

There has been a further motion, as I indicated, that there must be a total commitment on the part of the ministry, not in any wishy-washy terms, but a commitment to include the nursing profession under section 7(4) of Bill 40, as will be included in the Ontario Labour Relations Act, to deal with it expeditiously, to deal with the issues and to deal with the matter effectively, expeditiously and sensitively. It is something that can be attained. The issue is whether you have the determination to do so.

I looked at Hansard on Thursday. Clearly, the government is not prepared to move forward with this crucial change.

1700

The Second Deputy Chair: Further debate?

Mrs Witmer: I'd just like to point out my agreement with my colleague from Kitchener. I believe we have in this province a very highly skilled and well-qualified workforce. Certainly it's because of that highly qualified, hardworking and well-skilled workforce that some of the companies that may be prepared to move outside of Ontario will have to give serious consideration to that fact. That is one of the reasons they would choose to stay in this province, simply because of that. We have an excellent workforce and I don't think anybody could deny that point.

I'd like to move on to another amendment that we are suggesting. As I say, our amendments have tried to incorporate the views of not only the business community and individuals but also the municipalities, school boards and different professional groups.

We spoke earlier to the need to amend area 7 concerning nurses, and I'd like to speak now to section 32, an amendment which would ensure that engineers accountable under the Professional Engineers Act will make the decision on the number of replacement workers needed in an emergency situation. This is something the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario have asked for. They are convinced that 73.2 in the original bill and the government's amendments to it present and continue to present a serious danger to the public health and safety, because it prevents the delivery of critical services by professional engineers operating under the Professional Engineers Act of Ontario. They have indicated that they support the amendment I have put forward and the motion to amend section 73.2 of section 32.

I would concur that the use of replacement workers must be the sole decision of those who are accountable. Unfortunately, Bill 40 puts a procedure in place that will take the decision-making process away from the professional engineer.

Although the government has amended the bill to allow the board to make a predetermination prior to a strike or lockout to determine the manner and the extent to which the employer may use specified replacement workers, it does not ensure that the union will agree to participate in an early hearing. In addition, since it is unlikely that professional engineers will be appointed to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, they will not be involved in the decision process.

If the bargaining unit does not agree that a pre-emergency situation exists, then the employer has to follow a prolonged and complicated procedure to appeal the decision through the Ontario Labour Relations Board. As the engineers say, this is going to put the public at risk with respect to life, health and safety. In addition, the employer will be at risk with respect to assuming liability for (1) danger to life, health and safety, (2) the destruction or serious deterioration of machinery, equipment or premises, or (3) serious environmental damage until the decision is made.

This in fact makes life, health, safety and the environment a part of the bargaining process at the negotiating table. Bargaining leads to compromise, and life, health, safety and the environment should never be compromised. The safeguarding of life, health and safety has always been the prime purpose of the practice of professional engineering as outlined in the Professional Engineers Act of Ontario. Our amendment would ensure that the responsibility for public health and safety remains in the hands of those held responsible under other current provincial legislation. We hope the government would support the amendment to ensure that engineers who are accountable under the Professional Engineers Act will make the decision on the number of replacement workers needed in an emergency situation.

The Second Deputy Chair: Thank you. Further debate?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I understand we only have about two and a half minutes left on this side, so the only point I want to make on the nursing issue, because it's been raised again, is that the PC amendment that I gather both the Liberals and PC are supporting is one that ONA itself opposes. It seeks the addition of the phrase "registered and graduate nurses" and they want to exclude RNAs. I'm just wondering what the position is of the other two parties on that.

The Second Deputy Chair: Further debate?

Mr Offer: From the last comments of the Minister of Labour, I would have expected that he would be putting forward an amendment to deal with the issue, as he has. I would have expected the Minister of Labour to say that if there are some issues to be discussed, then he will abide by the request our party made for a task force to deal with the issue with respect to including nurses in section 7(4) of the bill. The minister was silent. I can only read that as saying that the minister has absolutely no intention of dealing with or moving on this issue, which is so important to so many people.

I would like to deal with what for me was a crucial area in the legislation. There were, of course, many areas that were very important, but this part of the bill is one which, in the limited time we had available to us, and notwithstanding the fact that we did not hear, because of the time allocation motion by the government, 25% of the people who were wished to be heard in the public hearing -- I think those who are watching the television of these proceedings should recognize that when one speaks about consultation, there were in the area of 1,100 or 1,200 groups and associations that wished to be heard on this bill, and because of the time allocation motion moved by the government, we could not hear 25%. Mr Chair, from your experience, you will know that those 1,100 groups represented hundreds of thousands of individuals.

That will be a lasting legacy of this bill, the rule changes that had to be brought in 45 minutes after the introduction of this bill in order to grease its way through the Legislature, in order to shut the door on so many people who wished to be heard on the bill. It is no excuse, it is no answer, for the minister to say that they spoke with some people prior to the introduction of the bill. The issue before many people and for many people was: "We want to speak on the bill. We want to speak on the provisions as were introduced." That's when the government, without any question, used the new rules to slam the door in their faces, a legacy that will rest with this bill for its duration.

I want to speak to section 8 of the bill, and that is the organizing section. I imagine that if there was one area that was spoken to most often, it was that area. It was clear to me that there were difficulties in the whole area of organizing. Currently under the act, if there are 55% or more of the members in a workplace who sign union cards, then that workplace is automatically certified. If there is less than 55% but greater than 45%, it triggers what is called a "representation vote." The NDP government, by Bill 40, has maintained the 55% for automatic certification but has lowered the threshold or the trigger point for a representation vote from what now exists, 45%, to 40%.

We took a look at those provisions, and I will tell you, as the Labour critic for my caucus, that we had concerns. I will tell you that our concerns were based on the rights of workers to know and to freely choose whether they do or do not wish to be part of a union.

This is a bill which I have raised time and time again as taking away the rights of workers. There is no provision under this bill which would inform workers of an organizing drive in the workplace. There is no provision in this bill which would make it mandatory for workers to be given a list and an understanding as to what their rights are under the Labour Relations Act.

1710

We prepared amendments which would, firstly, give notice to all workers in a workplace that an organizing drive was taking place and, secondly, that when that notice of an organizing drive was given, then the rights of workers would be posted so that they would know what they can do and what cannot be said to them. I believe that notice, as I had indicated in the earlier debate, would be a notice as prescribed by the labour relations board as an impartial, neutral body. I brought forward those amendments as a first step in an organizing drive to giving notice to the workers of this province.

What did the NDP government do to the amendment which called for notice being given to all workers that an organizing drive was being taken? They voted against that. They voted against notice to workers in a workplace that an organizing drive was taking place. Those who are watching will have to ask themselves the question as to why a government which professes to work in the best interests of workers would vote against giving workers notice of an organizing drive.

Also, it was to me and my party absolutely necessary that workers not only be given notice of a drive but also be given notice as to what their rights are under the Labour Relations Act. There is no provision that now makes that mandatory and I and my party believe that is necessary.

When that amendment was brought forward to the committee, the NDP members voted against giving notice to workers as to what their rights are under the Labour Relations Act. I must say that, to me, that signified an intent by the government to keep organizing drives in the shadows, as opposed to out in the open.

The issue is not whether one is in favour of or against unions. That is not the issue. The issue is that where an organizing drive takes place, do we want the workers to be informed that it is taking place and what their rights are? Those who are watching would say that should be a given. It is incredible that the NDP government voted against that.

The next area that we dealt with was the area of communications. We had heard in our public hearings that there were examples of intimidation and coercion. We had heard of examples where a worker in an organizing drive felt that he had been intimidated, that there was fear, that there was coercion.

As a party we felt and still are strongly against intimidation and coercion from whatever source, so we propose an amendment. Our amendment states that in an organizing drive, firstly, any communication to a worker must take place in the presence of a member of the Ontario Labour Relations Board and, secondly, if there is any written information given to the workers, either by the organizing drive or by the employer, it must be approved by the board to take away the possibility and potential of coercion and intimidation. When that amendment came forward, what happened? The NDP members voted against neutral communication to workers in an organizing drive, voted against reducing the possibility of intimidation and coercion.

We went further. We felt that it was necessary that a vote take place in a secret, free, democratic way. There is no one in the province of Ontario this week who does not fully understand what a secret ballot vote is. It was just last Monday when members not only in the province of Ontario but throughout this country engaged in a free vote; they voted the way they felt was right for them. What we wanted to do was give to the workers of the province the same right within their workplace that was exercised by people throughout this country just two days ago. What happened when that came before the NDP members of this committee? They voted that down. They said no to a free, secret ballot vote.

The government has proposed an amendment to reduce the threshold from 45% to 40%. We proposed an amendment that said the threshold should not be 40%; the threshold should be 30%. In other words, if an organizing drive has commenced and the workers in the workplace sign union cards which reach 30%, then that should trigger a vote. We believe that the lower threshold will reduce the incidence of intimidation and coercion and will enhance the right of workers to freely exercise their right to vote yes or no.

What did the NDP government members say to reducing the threshold from 40% to 30%? They voted against that. They said no to reducing the threshold. They said no to communicating with workers through a neutral body. They said no to notifying workers as to what their rights are under the Labour Relations Act. They said no to a secret ballot vote, the majority of which would carry the day.

I believe there are many people throughout this province who say it is high time we give to the workers of this province the rights that everybody else has in elections or referendums, the right to freely choose how they wish to be governed, either in the party of their choice or the union or not of their choice. It should be the right of workers of this province to make that choice, and we stand opposed to any amendment as proposed by the government on Bill 40 which takes away that right, as it does, of workers to freely exercise their right to choose the type of workplace they want.

We oppose a bill which does not make it mandatory that workers in this province should be informed of their rights, we oppose a bill where a government stands against neutral communication and we oppose a bill which does not give to the workers of this province protection against intimidation and coercion from whatever source.

1720

That leads me to my final point on this section. We heard examples -- and I do not believe that this is the norm, but it is and does happen -- where in an organizing drive an employer might engage in some intimidation. We also heard that there is the possibility, and we heard examples, of unions in an organizing drive engaging in intimidation, misinformation. To me and to my party, it is important and paramount for us that workers be protected from intimidation and coercion from whatever source. This bill fails dramatically in that area.

We provided an amendment, an amendment that said that if an employer in an organization drive has engaged in an unfair labour practice which is, without question, intimidating coercion and where the true wishes of the employee, the worker, cannot be ascertained, if that is proved then that workplace should be unionized. That should be the penalty, because we want to stop intimidation and coercion. That is why we proposed an amendment that would reinstate the penalties that now exist in the Ontario Labour Relations Act for worker intimidation by employers.

That is only half the story, because we could not turn our back on those stories, those examples which we heard, of intimidation and coercion coming in certain instances from the organizing union. We believe the worker must get equal protection. If the organizing union has engaged in any activity which is an unfair labour practice and which is viewed as intimidating, coercive, where the true wishes of the employee cannot be ascertained, then it is incumbent that this law put a penalty on that organizer, and the penalty we had brought forward by amendment was that the application would be immediately dismissed and that it could not be brought forward again, by that union, for one year -- protection for the worker from intimidation, coercion, misinformation, from whatever source.

We brought forward that amendment on the basis of what we believed is in the best interests of workers, the workers' right to freely choose in a free, secret, democratic, free-from-intimidation, coercion and fear manner. What did the government members do to that amendment which increased protection for workers in an organizing drive? Did they vote in favour of increasing protection or did they vote against it?

The recorded vote in that committee will show that the NDP members voted against the enhanced protection of workers in an organizing drive. The NDP members voted against communication. The NDP members voted against informing workers as to what their rights are. The NDP members voted against a secret ballot vote. The NDP members voted against lowering the threshold from 40% to 30%.

We will have to ask ourselves the question as to why that position was taken, which clearly takes away the rights of workers to freely choose as to whether they wish to be part of a union or not.

The Second Deputy Chair: Any further debate? The honourable member for Waterloo North.

Mrs Witmer: There were many outstanding presentations made to the committee this summer, and those who were not able to be heard sent in written submissions that individuals had obviously spent hours putting together.

I would like to go back now to section 32, the ban on replacement workers. There are many groups in this province who have a lot of concern. They are the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies, the Municipal Electric Association, the Ontario Public School Boards' Association, Consumers Gas, Centra Gas, Union Gas and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. These people are concerned about the ban on replacement workers because of the potential impact it can have on human beings within this province.

I am very disappointed that the government, in its amendments, did not expand the definition of "essential services" in order to ensure that people throughout this province could be protected in the event of a strike.

I would like to move, in section 32 of the bill, subsection 73.2(2) of the act, that we amend it, first by striking out the word "residential" in the first line of paragraph 3.

This is an amendment that has been asked for by the children's aid societies. This would ensure that all children's services throughout the province would be considered essential. This amendment is broader than the government's amendment, which restricts the definition to residential and emergency care. This restricted definition is of grave concern to people at the children's aid societies.

We would also add the following paragraphs:

"(a) the provision of water and electricity and the transmission or distribution of gas as defined in the Ontario Energy Board Act;

"(b) deemed essential services."

This amendment would maintain electric service during a labour dispute. If you think about the consequences of extensive, frequent or lengthy power disruptions to a hospital, a nursing home, a sewage treatment plant, high-rise elevators or traffic light systems, I think you can see there is clearly a need to maintain electric services. It's absolutely critical, and we need to expand the definition of "essential services."

The same thing applies to the transmission and distribution of natural gas.

We would also add the following paragraph:

"The provision of municipal services that are required under the Municipal Act."

We would again expand the definition of "essential services," because the Association of Municipalities of Ontario told us that municipal services are dictated by statutory obligations. Failure to perform required tasks can result in a danger to life or the imposition of fines or imprisonment. For example, municipalities have an obligation to perform building inspections. If the inspections were reduced in number or frequency, you can see there is a possibility for potential danger, and then the municipality would be liable. So it's absolutely essential that we expand the definition of "essential services" for the provision of municipal services that are required in the Municipal Act.

We would also add the following paragraph:

"The definition of 'essential services' be expanded to include the operation of elementary and secondary schools."

The provision of education is a basic function of government. This recognition and the substantial tax support which this recognition implies means that education should be regarded as an essential service. For example, what would happen if there was a strike of school bus drivers? If it was a rural board, this could disrupt the entire transportation system of a school board, and if the school board could not arrange alternative transportation, which it would not be able to do under the terms of Bill 40, you could close down the entire school system within that jurisdiction.

1730

Another example of the impact of Bill 40 and the ban on replacement workers would be that if the people responsible for the heating system went on strike, no one else would be permitted, by law, to operate the heating equipment. Again, it would force the closure of the entire school system.

Thus, we would recommend that the operation of elementary and secondary schools be included in the definition of "essential services." Obviously, by not doing so, the government is totally disregarding the concerns and the needs of people in this province.

Finally, we would also add that the provision of food be made an essential service if people in the community would otherwise be prevented from obtaining fresh produce. Why are we asking that this be included as an essential service? Well, let's consider the small grocers in small communities. I've talked about that before and the Minister of Labour did acknowledge there might be some inconvenience.

If you have a strike in a community, how do individuals in that community then get their daily food requirements? We've seen this trend towards daily shopping, every-other-day shopping. People no longer go to shop once a month or even once a week to stock up.

If there is not some provision made in these rural or isolated communities for individuals to get food, the legislation banning replacement workers is going to hurt the very people the government is trying to protect and says it's trying to protect. It's going to hurt the women; it's going to hurt the minority groups, the single-parent families, the children, the low-income families, the elderly and the people on welfare.

Think of isolated municipalities such as Thessalon or Cochrane. Where are these people going to get their food or be able to drive to or have access to drive to, if there's a strike and they're not able to get access to the small independent grocer? I hope the government will consider the viewpoint of these groups in this province and permit the expansion of the definition of "essential services."

The Second Deputy Chair: Further debate? The government does have, I believe, a minute; two minutes. Do you want to reserve your time, the members for the government?

Interjection.

The Second Deputy Chair: Any further debate?

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Do I speak from here or do I speak from my chair?

The Second Deputy Chair: The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour can speak from there.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): I just want to address myself to the issue of essential services. In committee we discussed this at great length particularly in terms of the children's aid society and the school board issue.

I should point out that within the amendments to subsection (9) and subsection (15) specifically, of that section 73.2, there is, in the area around designated replacement workers, room for the employer groups to speak with the employees and designate well in advance of any altercation that comes up in terms of their labour disputes, if there ever is one. Given, as the member opposite has said, that 95% of them are resolved without any kind of work stoppage, they have the opportunity, within the bill and within the subsections of the replacement worker and designated replacement worker sections, to work out their own arrangements which suit their workplace specifically.

That whole aspect was not understood during the hearings, and I think that when there were discussions later, and when we made a couple of clarifications within the process of clause-by-clause, those areas were clarified and in fact the amendments now after the clause-by-clause have worked out the concerns the CAS had, as well as the school boards and the utility factors.

Mr Offer: Dealing with the issue of section 32 and the replacement worker provision, I think it became patently obvious during the public hearing debate that this was not a bill of just business on one side and labour on the other. That is certainly the way the government wished to portray the bill, that if you were opposed to the bill you were opposed to labour, but in fact nothing could be further from the truth, as was indicated from our amendments. We provided amendments which seek to enhance the rights of workers to freely, democratically exercise their right to choose how their workplace is to be governed, without fear and intimidation.

On section 32, dealing with replacement workers, we heard deep concerns from school boards, municipalities, utilities, hydro, gas, children's aid societies, all with very deep concerns about what the replacement worker provision will mean to them and to their ability to carry out their responsibility. The issue of children's aid societies, dealing with the impact on children, dealing with the best interests of children: That is what is prescribed by another law. They believe this bill and the provisions will act as a barrier to their meeting the needs and concerns of children. School boards, hydro utilities and gas companies all had very serious and deep concerns over this provision.

To us, it is a matter of individual rights and freedoms. We do not quarrel with the right of workers to associate, to join unions of their choice and to strike if and within the bounds of the law, but we also believe that while you can embrace and protect those rights, so too can we embrace and protect the rights of individuals to attempt to keep their businesses operating, to allow school boards to continue to operate, to allow children's aid societies to continue to function in the best interests of children, to permit municipalities to repair stop signs, if necessary, hydro utilities to repair stoplights, gas utilities to maintain furnaces for all. This bill will be a barrier to that being able to be performed.

The time runs short in this very limited amount of time which the government has dictated to us. It is clear that this is a bill which is not in the best interests of this province. It is a bill which has sent out a negative message that this a province where one can invest, can create jobs and can maintain the security of existing jobs. This is a bill on which this government has been asked to conduct an economic analysis from day one. They have steadfastly refused. They do not know what the impact of this bill will be on the retail, agricultural, commercial and manufacturing sectors of this province. It is a bill which I fear will cause job loss and will cause loss of investment for our province.

The Second Deputy Chair: That completes the time of the official opposition. Further debate from the Progressive Conservative Party, with some time remaining.

Mrs Witmer: I'd like to conclude my remarks by responding to a statement by the parliamentary assistant where she assumes that the concerns of those individuals who were concerned about the definition of "essential services" had already been addressed. I can assure the parliamentary assistant that the children's aid society, as recently as last week, indicated to us that it is totally uncomfortable with the government's amendments, as are the other areas and groups that I spoke to earlier.

I can tell you that throughout this province there is widespread fear and uncertainty and concern that the government has not listened to the viewpoints and incorporated the concerns into Bill 40. There seems to be a total lack of consideration.

I'd like to end by moving one final amendment which I feel is absolutely necessary, because this is a bill which has created discord in the province which has a potential to have a very negative economic impact.

1740

I would move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Review by legislative committee

"64.1(1) Two years after the day on which this section comes into force, this act shall stand referred to the standing committee on justice for public hearings into and a review of,

"(a) the effect of this act, its implementation and administration on job creation, investment levels and patterns, union membership levels and certifications;

"(b) the change in the level of unionization in different sectors of the Ontario economy since the coming into force of this act;

"(c) the number of strikes and lockouts and the number of days lost due to strikes and lockouts since the coming into force of this act; and

"(d) wage levels, management practices, business startups, labour productivity and economic competitiveness in Ontario.

"Mandate

"(2) The standing committee shall report its findings to the assembly and may make recommendations to address any negative consequences arising from this act and its implementation and administration."

This amendment adds a new section to provide for mandatory review of the legislation which I hope this government will support. If they truly believe this is going to increase harmony and cooperation in this province and lead to a better atmosphere in the workplace, they have nothing to fear from a mandatory review.

This amendment, then, will require that two years after the date on which the bill comes into force, it will be referred to the standing committee on justice, which will conduct a public inquiry into the effects of the legislation, its implementation and administration on job creation, investment levels and patterns, union membership levels and certifications, the change in the level of unionization in different sectors in the Ontario economy, the number of strikes and lockouts and the number of days lost due to same, wage levels, management practices, business startups, labour productivity and economic competitiveness.

The standing committee has the mandate to report its findings and to recommend amendments to address any negative impacts resulting from the act, its implementation, its application and its administration.

I would hope, as we come to the end of our discussions -- and we've only had two days for discussion; in fact, I think I've only had an opportunity to put forward about 45 of the amendments that the PC caucus had prepared on behalf of individuals and groups in this province. It's been a very short time line. There has certainly not been adequate time for discussion or debate, just as there was not adequate time during the hearings this summer.

I believe the government has handled the entire process badly. It has been badly flawed. I still maintain that there should have been a process where we established a tripartite committee composed of labour and business and government. I wish that committee could have identified the problems with the Labour Relations Act, had an opportunity to discuss possible solutions, and then been able to arrive at a consensus.

I regret that the government has never indicated any willingness to take this act before such a committee to truly have a debate that would have thoroughly considered all of the concerns that we have tried to raise these last few days and also during the committee hearings. Unfortunately, that was never done. We will never know, because the government didn't conduct an economic impact study, what the impact is going to be on job loss and investment in this province.

I can tell you that I know of many companies that are considering downsizing their operations and reconsidering their positions in the province of Ontario once this bill does become law. I hope there will not be a negative impact on employees in this province, because the right of a worker to a job is the most basic right of any individual.

Again, I am concerned that the government did not truly consult with people in this province. They may think they have consulted, and they may even have listened, but they certainly did not incorporate the differing viewpoints and perspectives into the legislation.

The Second Deputy Chair: That concludes the time for the Progressive Conservative Party. The government has nine seconds.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I simply want to make the point that consultation does not mean that we have to agree with the opposition on any of the issues it has raised.

The Second Deputy Chair: This completes the time allotted for committee of the whole.

[Report continues in volume B]