The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

Mr Remo Mancini (Essex South): In a recent letter published in the Windsor Star under the headline "Government Against Farming," major farm leaders vented their anger with the inaction of the NDP government. The letter reads:

"For in 1991, the foe was not only inclement weather...but also the government of Ontario.

"Prior to the start of the 1991 growing season, the government of Ontario changed the public crop insurance program...so as to substantially reduce the payout for 'insured' farmers.

"The income shortfall...caused by this governmental mistake is estimated at $4 to $5 million, most of this occurring in the counties of Essex, Kent and Lambton.

"To add insult" to injury, "the Ontario government took back over $5 million of the $35.5 million in assistance which it promised last October to Ontario farmers.

"In the 1992 Ontario budget, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food took a bigger cut than all but two ministries.

"Farming and agriculture are clearly not a priority with this government."

As I said earlier, this letter is signed by major farm leaders, including Roger George, president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. It is important that the Premier and his government start listening to the concerns of farmers when the Ontario Federation of Agriculture presents its brief to cabinet later this week.

WELLINGTON-DUFFERIN COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CLINIC

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Today I would like to offer my congratulations to the community mental health clinic of Wellington and Dufferin counties, which has been serving these communities for 25 years.

As part of their celebrations, our local community mental health clinic has organized a program information exchange in my riding of Dufferin-Peel. The seminar will bring together over 60 social agencies and community organizations to discuss how each of them can provide the most coordinated and cooperative service to their clients.

I am proud to say that so many service-oriented groups are getting together to learn more about each other and how they can better serve their community. No more shuffling from group to group, no more, "It's not my job," only better service to the people of Wellington and Dufferin counties.

The Wellington-Dufferin Community Mental Health Clinic has taken a step towards better service to its clients and better cooperation between other agencies.

A stigma still exists surrounding mental health. However, people are learning. They are learning that one in five Canadians suffers from some degree of mental illness. They are learning that one in eight Canadians is hospitalized because of mental illness.

We all have to become more aware of how mental illness affects our families, friends and coworkers. We all have to learn what it means to suffer from a mental illness. We all have to understand the repercussions of mental illness and to avoid the stigmas and biases that we have because of a lack of understanding of mental illness.

I will be attending the community mental health clinic's 25th anniversary and its program exchange seminar on November 12. I urge the members of this House to make a commitment to educate themselves on mental illness and on how community services such as the mental health clinic serve our communities throughout Ontario.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Tony Rizzo (Oakwood): I rise to express my constituents' concern about the tax plan approved by Metro council last week. Next year, when legislation will be in place to implement the plan, many small business operators are going to have to re-evaluate and take a second look at the viability of their businesses in view of the fact that they will have to absorb extra tax increases of 10%, followed by another 10% in 1994 and by another 5% in 1995. During a period of extreme economic hardship, these types of decisions show a complete lack of sensitivity towards family-run business establishments.

Home owners and small businesses in my riding of Oakwood have been paying the highest property taxes in Metro Toronto for the last 40 years and from now on will still be paying more than they should and will still be supporting those who benefited for the same number of years. These are facts that cannot be denied or subject to misinterpretation.

I am asking the government to consider changes that would at least allow home owners and small business commercial operators to do renovations and improvements to their properties in excess of $5,000 without having to be penalized by increasing their assessments and, therefore, their taxes. A change in that direction would give some relief to those who have been unfairly treated. At the same time, this would generate work, with a positive spinoff effect for the economy of our province.

STEPHENSON INQUEST

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): In June 1988, an 11-year-old boy in my community was killed by an incurable paedophile, a man who had a tremendous record of convictions for sexual assault. This lad was abducted from a shopping centre, was held for 24 hours, sexually assaulted over that period of time and strangled.

The parents have suffered through that agony. They've suffered through a trial. They are now suffering through an inquest, and they're prepared to do that because they want to find out why this man was able to roam the streets.

There are at least four ministries that are funding legal counsel at the inquest. This inquest will last about two months. These people have retained a lawyer, and it's going to cost them in the neighbourhood of $200,000. Surely this government has money to assist these people with their legal accounts, particularly as it has four lawyers there already. They seem to have money for all sorts of other things: $1.2 million for Mr Holt, because they fired him; they also seem to have money for Dr Morgentaler. Surely the Stephensons deserve as much as that.

I call upon and urge the Premier and the Attorney General to assist these people in this very needed and necessary thing. The Stephensons are taking on this agony again to ensure that the safety of other 11-year-olds and younger children will not be compromised by the fact that some animal can roam Brampton and other cities throughout this province.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital in Burlington is one of the province's most efficiently run hospitals. The Ministry of Health has required that all hospitals move to a goal of 850 patient-days per 1,000 population served. Joseph Brant is one of the most efficient hospitals in Ontario in this respect. For some time now they've been operating well below that, and their current ratio is 560 days per 1,000, which is one of the lowest ratios in the province.

They've reduced staffing hours without affecting patient care and have reshuffled duties between other members of the staff. They have closely scrutinized all current vacancies that occur to minimize staff hiring at the moment.

In the current year's operating budget, they had anticipated $1.8 million in extra funding from the Ministry of Health. They had anticipated this coming from the equity portion of the hospital transition fund, which recognizes efficient hospitals. They have now been officially advised that they will be receiving $187,000. This leaves a shortfall in their operating budget of $1.5 million for the year.

Despite their efficiency and extra efforts at cutting their spending, they have now no choice except to cut both staff and service. This situation is intolerable, to say the least. I say to this government, the people of Burlington need a hospital. Please don't destroy it.

1340

SCHOOL CURRICULUM

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I rise today to offer my congratulations to the Oxford County Board of Education for its recent policy statement on spelling for elementary schools.

Many parents today worry about the education their children receive in public schools, especially in the basics of reading and writing. The Oxford county board recognized these concerns and took action to deliver a clear and concise message: Spelling counts.

The board's senior administration and consultant staff prepared a draft document outlining the teaching and learning of spelling in our elementary schools. After receiving positive support and some constructive criticism from the schools in their system, the board released its final policy statement.

I want to point out that this policy is not a step backwards to the rote methods advocated by back-to-basics supporters, but neither is it an experiment in the classroom.

The board's policy statement is simple: We need a consistent approach in the delivery of our spelling programs; we need to ensure public confidence in our students' ability to spell, and we need to ensure that graduates of our programs have strong skills that will ensure their success in further learning and the world of work. The board advocates the best solution: the combination of a strong process-oriented reading, writing and oral whole-language classroom program and a well-constructed spelling program.

In a nutshell, the board expressed its support for the whole-language program which gives children a risk-free environment to build vocabularies, while at the same time setting expected outcomes for each program, course unit or lesson. But even more importantly, the board recognized the need to inform and involve parents in the process through open-house nights, newsletters or one-on-one meetings with teachers.

In closing, I want to reiterate my congratulations to the Oxford county board for its proactive and progressive action. All students, staff and parents will benefit from this forward-thinking policy.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I would like to address one of the Kirby commission's proposals: the annexation of the community of Manor Park by the city of Vanier. I cannot emphasize strongly enough the opposition of Manor Park residents to this proposal.

Manor Park has been a part of the city of Ottawa since 1949. It has grown with Ottawa and reflects the national capital's bilingual character. It would be clearly undemocratic to change its status without taking into consideration the wishes of its residents. The economic benefits that would result from the annexation have yet to be demonstrated. We are looking at the initial cost of implementation and significant tax increases for citizens. Whether in the short or long term, this proposal is not in the best interests of the residents of Manor Park.

I would like to add that other communities, such as the city of Gloucester and the municipality of Rockcliffe, also feel threatened with dissolution and integration.

How can the Minister of Housing, who represented the riding of Carleton East from 1975 to 1981, support these initiatives? She knows these communities. She is familiar with Manor Park's strong and exemplary community spirit. Why is she not defending the real interests of the residents of Manor Park?

Let this be clear to the Minister of Municipal Affairs: Residents of Manor Park are against the proposal for annexation and they will not give up their right for their community. Should annexation be implemented, there will be real opposition.

CORPORATION FILING PROGRAM

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): My constituents are outraged at the newest tax grab by this money-hungry government: the filing program for incorporated businesses and non-profit corporations. Suddenly, by regulation, not legislation, all corporations in Ontario must pay an additional $50 filing fee. This new fee is not to pay for new services; it is just a new way to squeeze more money from our businesses here in Ontario. This is for the privilege of filing information the government already has.

Many of my constituents operate several small companies, and this $50 filing fee for each company can represent a sizeable sum. As businesses struggle to survive through the recession, this government continues to make it as difficult as possible.

There is no partnership with business. There is no concern about keeping jobs and investment in this province so that prosperity can return. There are only brain-storming sessions on new ways to take money out of the pockets of the citizens and new regulations that force more money into government.

This government is anti-business. With Bill 40 and the latest tax grab they are sending the message: Ontario is not a friendly place in which to do business.

I say to the Premier, the voters' booth will not be a friendly place for the NDP in the next election, when this government will finally be forced to listen to what the people have to say.

WAVELL VILLAGE

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I want to take this opportunity to tell the House about Wavell Village, a non-profit housing community in my riding.

Wavell Village recently won the City of London Urban Design Award for residential housing. I believe the architect, Malhotra Nicholson Architects of London; Bill Code, the chairperson of the O'Dell Jalna development committee, O'Dell committee members and the Wavell Village residents deserve hearty congratulations.

They have created a living space that is attractive and meets the needs of the people who reside there. Most of the Wavell units look out over grassed areas and walkways. Children's play areas are away from parking areas and, even more importantly, are visible and therefore safe.

The homes of Wavell Village opened in September 1991 and are part of the revitalization of London neighbourhoods, part of the housing policy that is an essential component in this government's plan to provide decent, affordable housing. Such housing ultimately is the foundation of healthy, participatory communities that will contribute most positively to Ontario's future. Congratulations to all who have made Wavell Village a neighbourhood and an award-winning project.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CORPS D'ÉLITE AWARDS

Hon Peter North (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): We have five distinguished visitors to the Legislature today. They are the recipients of the province's highest honour in recreation, the Corps d'élite Ontario Awards. Please join me in welcoming Hartland Finley of Ottawa, John Gates of Kincardine, John Macintyre of Etobicoke, Hugh Robertson of Whitby, and Mary Whittam of Etobicoke. In a few minutes, I will escort them to the Lieutenant Governor's suite, where they will receive the awards in a ceremony presided over by His Honour Henry Jackman.

The Corps d'élite awards honour outstanding recreation volunteers and professionals. Each of these individuals has shown exceptional leadership, creativity and commitment in helping Ontario recreation to better serve the needs of all citizens. In these hard economic times, when our recreation system has come under great pressure to do better with less, their contribution is even more meaningful. They are not alone. By recognizing these five people, we celebrate all recreation volunteers in this province. Their work enriches the lives of people of all ages and abilities across Ontario.

Mr Speaker, I would ask you and the honourable members to join with me now in showing our appreciation of all recreation volunteers by recognizing Hartland Finley, John Gates, John Macintyre, Hugh Robertson and Mary Whittam.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): May I extend my congratulations to all five, but particularly to Mr Gates, who hails from Kincardine in the great riding of Bruce. I know from my experience with John in the meetings that he has attended and the hours that he has put in that all five probably have dedicated a considerable amount of personal time and energy to expanding on their own belief in recreation as a source of continuing and abiding interest and health for the people on whose behalf they have worked.

I would say that the volunteer sector and the people who go through all this work have been really the backbone of recreation for so many years in this province. There are people out there who have not been recognized the way they should have been in a timely fashion, and it is nice to see us from time to time making a commitment to dedicate ourselves to say thank you to people who have extended their own persons beyond what I think is normally required of individuals. On that note alone, I want to say congratulations to all of you and again, as I say, particularly to John Gates.

There's no question, as we carry on through these difficult times, that the recognitions which we hand out are so few and far between for people like these and others who are not officially recognized that we are wearing thin the long-standing service that these people have been giving, that we are causing difficulties with seeing the light at the end of the tunnel for people who have dedicated themselves selflessly to ensuring that there is good planning at the basis of recreation in our local communities.

It seems to me that small rewards -- as this is; there isn't anything in this so much from a monetary fashion, but there is from the point of prestige for these people -- are the very least we can do. I think at a time like this as well, though there's a very small hint of what is to come here for our province in the next few months and in the next budgetary year, there are going to be more difficult times. It will only be on the basis of the very strong planning that has been done by people like these whom we honour today that we will be able to hold a number of our recreation programs together. The stresses are real, the tempers sometimes short at the meetings.

1350

In fact, I can remember being at a Lake Huron zone meeting at the CAW centre in Port Elgin where the entire region was sitting down to plan what it should do next. I, in my few remarks, had mentioned that one of the first places where pressure is felt in the local municipalities, indeed even around the cabinet table, I suspect, at budgetary time is in the recreation department, that it is a real problem to stay the course, to be dedicated, to be promoting programs and to be promoting physical activity in the very many forms you do in a way which will gain a lot of public sentiment.

I think if we can provide some kind of direction to help the minister, as he nods his agreement here, but also to help the women and men who are honoured today, it would be very helpful indeed.

I must say one final point. I was the Minister of Health for a few short years and enjoyed it --

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Very, very short. Too short.

Mr Elston: Yes, it was very good. But one of the things I recognized more than any other was that the formality of our health system is helped so much by the informality of the volunteer network that helps people to get out and help themselves to better health. Recreation in all forms -- it doesn't have to be the sort of élite forms of international participation, but all those programs at the local level -- is so important in making sure that men and women can retain their physical health to ensure that they develop more stamina to carry on with the more difficult days they face in economic times like this.

I just want to say to the five who are honoured, thank heaven for you and many more like you. We would be in terrible shape, literally and figuratively, without you.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I'm very pleased to join with the minister and the member for Bruce, on behalf of all my colleagues in the Ontario PC caucus, to extend our wholehearted congratulations to our five recipients of the Corps d'élite Ontario Awards. It's a tremendous award. It's a tremendous opportunity, I think, for this Legislature and all members to recognize the importance these people have provided in terms of recreational leadership and volunteerism in our communities.

We all know, as leaders in our own communities, how important volunteerism is, and that indeed it is the backbone of any thriving and living community in Ontario. But I also want to point out -- and I think it's appropriate at this point in the history of Ontario and of Canada, when politicians have spent a lot of money and a lot of time running around, trying to figure out what good citizenship is all about -- that we need to look no further than the gallery today, where we have five very fine examples of good citizenship.

Perhaps the best definition of good citizenship that I've ever heard is not only exemplified in the people we are honouring today; it's best summed up in the sentence that, if at the end of the day the people you work with, the communities you live in and the people you encounter every day are better for the very fact that you are there, then you know you've embraced good citizenship that day.

Today, we take great pleasure in honouring and congratulating once again five recipients of the Corps d'élite Ontario Awards, which are indeed the highest awards possible in the field of recreation volunteerism in the province.

I also want to just point out, as the member for Bruce did, that today we have special thoughts for Mr John Gates because, Mr Speaker, he is a cousin of Debbie Hutton, who, as you know, is the assistant to our House leader. So we've heard great stories about Mr Gates, and we're very pleased to congratulate all of the recipients of the award.

I know that my colleague the member for Etobicoke West would also like to say a few words, when he gets in his seat here, about the recipients from Etobicoke.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Further responses?

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I would just like to say that you will learn when you come to the city of Etobicoke that volunteers are a very healthy part of our community, and this is a clear indication, that two Etobians have come down to Queen's Park. I certainly want to congratulate them. It shows leadership from our community and I think that they deserve to be acknowledged as they are today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SALARY OF ONTARIO HYDRO CHAIR

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is for the Premier. Mr Premier, my question concerns your second appointment to the chairmanship and chief executive officer's job at Ontario Hydro, Mr Maurice Strong. Some months ago, I believe it was almost a year ago, when Mr Eliesen kindly volunteered to take a $160,000 annual pay cut, you observed at that time, and I quote your words: "I think everyone has an obligation to look at restraint as an objective, as a standard we should be aiming at. We are endeavouring to exercise restraint wherever we can."

In making calls to the United Nations staff, I've been told that the current rate of pay for an undersecretary general at the United Nations currently ranges between $117,000 and $125,000 annually. If that were the rate of pay that Mr Strong were receiving as an undersecretary general at the United Nations, and I have to believe that it was, can the Premier indicated how it is that Mr Strong would come to his new responsibilities at a salary that is almost three times the rate of pay that is currently being offered to those men and women who serve in that capacity as undersecretary general at the United Nations?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): First of all, I want to say to the member that Maurice Strong is a person of enormous ability and of enormous integrity. I am going to stand in my place here today and say to the honourable member that he knows full well that the chief executive position at Ontario Hydro when he was a member of the Peterson cabinet paid over $500,000 in terms of the salary that was available. He knows that perfectly well.

I can tell the honourable member that I do not know what salary Mr Strong received from the United Nations, if any -- if any, I would say to the honourable member -- because Mr Strong has a record of doing a great deal of his public service work pro bono.

This is a full-time chief executive position with respect to a corporation which, under the leadership of the previous government, of which the honourable member for Renfrew North was a member, racked up a $10-billion overflow on the construction of Darlington; a $10-billion overflow under the leadership of that government. The Liberal Party has a nerve even mentioning the word "restraint" when it talks about Ontario Hydro. They have absolutely no ground upon which to stand when it comes to either Mr Strong --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: -- or their own record with regard to Ontario Hydro, which was a public disgrace.

1400

Mr Conway: In my first question I took some effort to quote the Premier's comment and commitment to restraint a year ago when we were last talking about the difficulty that his first appointment, Mr Eliesen, encountered with his rather extravagant salary demands at Ontario Hydro. At that time a year ago, Mr Rae said, "I think everyone has an obligation to look at restraint as an objective, as a standard we should all be aiming at."

My question remains. I want to ask the Premier this: Given his commitment a year ago to restraint, I say again that he has offered his good friend Mr Maurice Strong $425,000 a year. I simply ask again because the facts are clear that Mr Strong's last job was as an undersecretary general at the United Nations. The current rate of pay there is in the neighbourhood of $125,000 US annually, and $425,000 represents an almost threefold increase. Can the Premier justify to the hard-pressed Ontario taxpayers and the hard-pressed Ontario ratepayers how it is he feels that someone who he says is prepared to offer a lot of his services pro bono --

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): He's working full time now.

Mr Conway: If Mr Strong has a reputation of offering his services for free --

The Speaker: Would the member conclude his supplementary, please.

Mr Conway: -- can the Premier indicate how it is that in this time of recession and restraint he felt it necessary to offer Mr Strong $425,000 annually?

Hon Mr Rae: I want to say to the honourable member, in case he doesn't remember, because his leader was the former minister responsible for Ontario Hydro, that under the leadership of the Liberal government, under the urging of the member for Renfrew -- whom I can remember in this House for 10 years calling on Ontario Hydro to build bigger and bigger megaprojects at bigger and bigger cost -- let me remind the honourable member that under his government, under the leadership of the party of which he was a member -- and he is still a member -- under the Liberal Party record with respect to Ontario Hydro, Ontario Hydro now has a deficit of $32 billion and ticking.

That's why over 20,000 employees and an asset base of $40 billion -- it is the largest corporation in Canada with respect to its asset base, and you go out and look at the salaries that are being paid in the private sector, the skills and the talents that we need to attract to deal with an intractable problem. It is impossible to take the honourable member seriously with respect to his question.

Mr Conway: The Premier's revisionist history would make Comrade Andropov blush. The Premier's revisionist history would make Comrade Brezhnev blush. Let me say as a final question --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Order.

Mr Conway: I can't call him what the facts would suggest I should call him.

Interjections.

The Speaker: While a discussion of history excites people, perhaps a bit of restraint would allow the member for Renfrew North to place his final supplementary.

Mr Conway: A final question to the overly sensitive, very delicate, Japan-bound Premier. We all know this: Robin Sears won't be asking any of these kinds of difficult, embarrassing questions.

My final question is this, Mr Speaker, to my friend the leader of the government: Can the leader of the government confirm that, weeks after Mr Strong had agreed to become the chairman and chief executive officer of Ontario Hydro, the Hydro board of his creation issued an untendered contract in the amount of $100,000 to the American firm Stuart Spencer to undertake a search for a new chairman and CEO at Ontario Hydro? An untendered $100,000 contract to an American, multinational, headhunting firm named Stuart Spencer, weeks after the government and/or its agents had brought Mr Strong on board.

Hon Mr Rae: Let me first of all say that the only person who would be embarrassed by the kinds of questions that are being asked today by the member for Renfrew North is the member for Renfrew North himself. No one else is embarrassed by that, let me tell you. No one else is embarrassed.

With respect to Mr Strong, the only thing I can say to the member with respect to the date of his acceptance of the offer is that Mr Strong did not finally accept and was not ultimately persuaded by me to accept this appointment until about two days before it was publicly announced.

ONTARIO HYDRO PRESIDENT

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): My question is for the Premier as well. Mr Premier, does the Minister of Energy report to you?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the Premier wish to respond?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I would say to the honourable member that, among others, the Minister of Energy reports to me; he also reports to the honourable member.

Mr McGuinty: Mr Premier, your Minister of Energy was intimately involved in the firing of Al Holt. The facts there are indisputable.

Yesterday when we raised Al Holt's $1.2-million severance package with the minister, he said outside the doors of this chamber that he was "not interested."

Let me tell you, Mr Premier, we on this side of the House are somewhat interested in this matter, and I venture to say that the people of this province --

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Five years in government.

The Speaker: The member for Cochrane South.

Mr McGuinty: -- the same people whose hydro rates were increasing 30% over three years, the same people who are paying $425,000 a year for your new chairman, the same people who paid $567,237 recently for boardroom renovations at Hydro -- these same people are very interested in learning more about this parting gift to Mr Holt.

We have the undeniable right to know how much we're paying Mr Holt in order to bring about his quiet departure, complete with gag order. Mr Premier, how much is Al Holt's forced departure going to cost us?

Hon Mr Rae: Since there was such a long preamble to the question, let me just say to the honourable member that when he speaks to his constituents in Ottawa South about the rise in hydro rates, perhaps he will explain to them that it was the government of the party of which he's a member that racked up a $10-billion overflow on the construction of Darlington.

This is the fact that the Liberal Party never wants to admit. It was supposed to cost $3.8 billion. We're the only party that stood in the Legislature when we were sitting over there and called on the government not to proceed. The Tories decided to go ahead; the Liberals confirmed it. It cost $10 billion more than it was supposed to cost. That's what's causing the problem in hydro rates. Everybody in Ontario knows it. Why doesn't the Liberal party wake up and recognize that's the problem with Hydro? That's the fact we have to deal with; that's why the team is being changed at Ontario Hydro.

Mr McGuinty: Mr Speaker, I'm sure you can understand my frustration, because even when we can get the Premier to answer a question, he does not specifically respond to the question being asked.

Mr Premier, yesterday the minister said that Mr Holt's severance was negotiated by the Hydro board. The minister said he wasn't aware of the details of the severance, and we find this particularly interesting, because as you know, his deputy minister, George Davies, sits on the board of directors, and in fact he has now assumed the position of acting chair and CEO of Ontario Hydro.

Certainly Mr Davies, in his special capacities at Hydro, would be able to tell the minister about Mr Holt's severance package. Will the Premier order his minister to ask Mr Davies, his very own deputy, to tell him all about the severance package, and if not, why not?

1410

Hon Mr Rae: I understand that some of these issues are going to be discussed at the committee on November 16 and I'm sure the honourable member and others will be there as well. But I just want to come back to the honourable member and just say to him, with respect to the issue at Ontario Hydro, if he thinks that we were simply going to carry on with the policies of former governments, which led us into a $32-billion debt at Ontario Hydro, a whacking great mortgage that we're having to pay for, businesses are having to pay for, consumers are having to pay for day after day, if you think we're going to sit back and do nothing about that and not try to seek to make some major changes, which we've been making for the past two years, then I disagree thoroughly with the honourable member.

I will debate the issue of Hydro in this House, across the province and remind people of the mess created by the Liberals and the Tories, their fascination for megaprojects literally out of control, and a $10-billion overflow. Explain that to the people of the province and how the heck you expect consumers to put up with that. That's your issue. That's what you have to be tagged with.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a question for the Premier. Premier, yesterday you told this House what a wonderful job you thought your Solicitor General was doing in managing the dispute with the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association. I believe the last time the Solicitor General brought his unique skills to bear in this situation was at his meeting last Friday with the Police Association of Ontario.

Mr Premier, the Police Association of Ontario has now responded by joining the Metro job action. It has responded now by adding 21,000 officers all across Ontario to the ranks of this protest against your government. Surely you would at least agree -- not with everything I say, I know that -- that the situation is getting out of hand.

Given that much of the police action has nothing to do with the Solicitor General and it really has very little to do with filling out reports -- as you've heard the police say, that's not the issue; in fact, Premier, much of the issue has to do with you. It has to do with you, with your office, it has to do with your parliamentary assistant, it has to do with actions that you have taken, not the Solicitor General -- given that reality, would you not agree that it is irresponsible of you to head off to Asia two days from now without dealing with this issue as is your responsibility, as is your duty as Premier of this province? Will you, therefore, put an end to what's going on, to this escalation, to this situation getting out of control? Will you today fulfil your responsibility and meet with the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association?

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

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): As I've indicated to the House earlier, the development of this regulation started in the Ministry of the Solicitor General and there shall it be concluded.

We met last Friday with Bob Morrison, the president of the Police Association of Ontario, and his executive. It was a very fruitful meeting and a meeting that resulted in an agreement to continue to meet.

Since that time, the PAO has met with its representatives from across this province, and I, for one, am quite heartened by the position that this association has taken. While on the one hand it has said that it continues to support the action of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association, which comes as no surprise, and it has indicated to its other associate members that if they wish to follow a similar action they may do so -- that of donning ball caps and blue ribbons -- also out of that meeting came the expression that it was not recommended that there be any escalation in this circumstance.

Mr Morrison is quoted as saying that he is not particularly concerned with the regulation with respect to drawing and in terms of the paperwork. He's quoted in the Toronto Sun as saying, "That's nothing." While Mr Morrison and the PAO and others have ongoing concerns, I believe that we at our subsequent meetings will do very well and very nicely, thank you, towards moving to a resolution of this conflict.

Mr Harris: By way of supplementary to the Solicitor General, now, the Solicitor General and I and Mr Morrison and everybody agrees the issue is not filling out reports, as you have just said; we agree with that. Let's get down to what the issue is, because as a result of your meeting, we now have 80% to 90% of the police officers in the province participating in a job action against you, against your government and particularly against the Premier of the province of Ontario. Now, we know that.

Mr Solicitor General, quoting the Toronto Sun, as you've quoted, this job action goes back beyond the filling out of reports on drawing weapons. It goes to the distrust of your Premier, to the distrust of what the reports are going to be used for. It goes to the distrust of the motives.

The article in the Toronto Sun points out that the real beginnings of the job action began in fact many months before, when your Premier scrapped a joint committee of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association and the commission that was working on use-of-force regulations, unilaterally scrapped that and replaced it with a new committee made up and dominated by groups that were hostile to and anti the police. In fact, that is the story that came out of the Toronto Sun article that you are quoting from today, and because you have quoted from it I will quote from it as well.

Can you tell me, Mr Solicitor General, why you or -- as I suspect, it wasn't you -- why your Premier or the Premier's office scrapped a year and a half of consultations, scrapped that committee that was acceptable --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the leader complete his supplementary, please.

Mr Harris: -- to the police and replaced it with a committee that was stacked against the police? Can you tell me why that action was taken?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The first thing is that I want to correct the leader of the third party in his unfortunate reference to the Premier, where he suggested the Premier scrapped this consultation committee. Mr Speaker, so that I will not abridge the rules of the House, is it okay for me to simply say that he was incorrect? Would that be all right? I'd like to use a stronger word but I think you wouldn't allow me to do it. The contention is in error. It's wrong. It has no factual basis. It just plain isn't the case.

The consultations were held over many months with the police stakeholder groups. It was only after that, on a subsequent occasion, that there were other members of the public who were allowed to have their say and their input into this particular process.

It's not up to me to speak for him, but I know the Premier of this province supports police officers in this province and understands clearly the difficult job they have to do, as do I. As a result of those concerns we, through the Ministry of the Solicitor General, are continuing to enhance police training and other vehicles to ensure that we have one of the finest and continue to have one of the finest police --

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

Hon Mr Pilkey: -- support mechanisms in this province and ahead of any other in the Dominion of Canada.

Mr Harris: Let me quote from the last part of the article in the Toronto Sun, "So, in one arbitrary, telling sweep, did the Bob Rae government simultaneously turn its back on the police and embrace their most vicious critics."

Now, Mr Minister, either you or the Premier or the now top civil servant in the province, David Agnew, scrapped this committee that had been working for a year and a half, because scrapped it was and you know it was. It was replaced with a committee stacked against the police and you know that.

I say to you, Solicitor General, that I believe it is reasonable that if your Premier had allowed the original committee to do its job, you would not have found yourself in the mess you're in today, with both sides now totally distrusting each other, that in fact the use-of-force issue may have been resolved today if the balanced committee had been allowed to run its course, and quite frankly, a whole bunch of other things wouldn't have happened. The so-called Black Action Defence Committee, which became a key part of the new committee you set up, would never have had a platform in the first place to use in calling the police racist.

Mr Solicitor General, given that it was your Premier who scrapped this committee, or the Premier's office, given that it was your Premier --

The Speaker: Would the leader of the third party place his supplementary, please.

Mr Harris: -- who replaced this committee with one stacked against police, given that this is the real issue why the police distrust your Premier, do you not agree with me that it is irresponsible for your Premier to run away for 16 days and leave this mess in your hands when it wasn't your fault in the first place?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I don't agree with the leader of the third party at all. The Premier of this province had nothing to do with respect to the consultative committee that surrounded this particular issue; I did, and my ministry did. I'm indicating that the police stakeholders had all kinds of input. It was valuable input. It was proper input. It was input that we wanted, that we sought and that we received.

Surely, the member opposite wouldn't deny us the opportunity, albeit in this case only on one-and-a-half days of consultation, to hear from the general public or from representatives of a group that had an interest in this particular regulation, because that's the extent of the interface that they had.

1420

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I have a question for the Premier. Mr Premier, you indicated in the weekend press that cabinet would be looking at the issue of market value assessment in Metropolitan Toronto. In fact, Saturday's Globe and Mail reported that your cabinet "will act as a court of final appeal on the controversial issue." Premier, is it your intention to have cabinet make this decision without giving the rest of the Legislature an opportunity to participate in this process?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): As much as I'd like to answer this question, I think I'll refer it to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Oh, come on. He's not making the decision. Who wants to hear from this guy?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I don't know whether to try to answer the question or not. One person asked the question and another member says I can't answer it.

It's my understanding, and I think the House leader for the third party knows this, that if we are to proceed with the market value assessment proposal that has been put together by Metro and Metro's chair, Alan Tonks, if we're to implement that plan, there would be legislation facilitating that; that's the role. We'd have to amend the Metro Toronto act to give it the same power that every other region and every other municipality in the province has without having to change legislation.

Mr Eves: The Globe article quotes the Premier as saying, and I wouldn't want to misquote him, "We live in an open society where people make their case and I'm sure the people who have been making their case before will make it again."

Minister, would you not agree that these hearings should start today? How are we going to get this passed through the Legislature by December 10 if these hearings don't start immediately? We can't deal with this issue behind the closed doors of the Cabinet Office.

Hon Mr Cooke: I think it's only fair to point out that Metro council made it's decision last Thursday. They approved the Metro plan last Thursday.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Why don't you tell them that? They can't possibly get the legislation by December 10.

The Speaker: Order, the member for York Centre.

Hon Mr Rae: We haven't heard that yet. Are you the House leader now?

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Sorbara: I am a member here.

Hon Mr Rae: I'm trying to clear up your role within your caucus; that's all.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Cooke: The Metro plan just came. It was just approved by Metro council last Thursday. That decision has to be communicated to us in a request to approve legislation to give Metro the same powers that every other region and every other municipality in the province already has without having to bring it to the Ontario Legislature.

The cabinet will act as quickly as possible and a decision on government policy will be announced as quickly as possible, and then the Legislature will have to debate the legislation, but I think it should be made very clear that we will not be debating Metro's plan; we will be debating legislation to give Metropolitan council the same power that every other region and every other municipality in Ontario already has.

Mr Eves: The very simple fact of the matter is that you know that next week will be constituency week and that the Legislature and the committees of the Legislature will not be sitting. After that, because you have unilaterally shortened the timetable and the calendar around here to December 10, we'll have four weeks to deal with this very important issue.

That is not a lot of time to deal with Metro Toronto's plan. The plan has been changed several times. There have been dozens of changes since the original hearings before Metro Toronto council. Why won't you agree to start public hearings on this today so we can deal with this issue the way it should be dealt with -- public hearings in a committee of this Legislature and dealt with on the floor of this Legislature -- before we adjourn on December 10? What do you have against that?

Hon Mr Cooke: What I will do as Minister of Municipal Affairs is talk to our House leader and the three of you should talk about it tomorrow. You can probably come up with a solution on how to deal with this. The three House leaders should talk about the procedure on this tomorrow.

LOTTERY TICKETS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Premier as well.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I hope he doesn't dodge this one.

Mr Mahoney: I don't think he can. The minister he might dodge it to isn't here, but we'll see.

Last Thursday, Premier, your government introduced a new lottery. You might recognize it; it's the one Don Cherry is promoting on television. The Sport Select Pro-Line lottery allows people to place a bet at their corner store, instead of calling their bookie, on professional hockey games, American football and the CFL.

This lottery apparently has been a hit in the Metro area, with over 32,000 bets placed on the first day alone. In fact, as a result, people are now referring to you, sir, as Bookie Bob, among other things.

Premier, my question is not so much about the lottery, which I understand will raise an additional $45 million or $40 million for charity -- are they running around looking for the minister so you can duck this one too? Well, let's see if he comes.

My question is something I'm sure you as a family man would be concerned about and it concerns the attractiveness and the accessibility to our young people. There is no law prohibiting the sale of lottery tickets to minors. There is an Ontario Lottery Corp policy, but there is no law. There is no penalty for retailers who ignore that policy and subsequently sell to minors.

Premier, with one ingenious stroke, you've made legalized gambling available to our kids in this province. Kids are lining up at Becker's and Mac's to gamble their lunch money. Is there no end to this government's search for revenue? Premier, do you agree with kids betting legally on sporting matches and, if not, what are you going to do about it?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Despite the long anticipated preamble to the question, I take the question seriously. He has a suggestion, I take it, which is that the sale of any form of lottery tickets should be banned to minors. Is that the suggestion he's making on behalf of his caucus? If that's the suggestion that's being made on behalf of the caucus, obviously that's something we would all want to consider.

Mr Mahoney: This was brought to my attention this weekend. A family in my riding found that their son had lost $25 as a result of buying tickets at their corner store. The parents stormed into that store, quite upset, of course, filed a complaint and were told by the operator that while it's not illegal to sell these tickets to minors, the store would stop doing it as a gesture in the community.

We have an example of a 10-year-old girl at a kiosk in a mall this weekend who was allowed to walk right up and place her bet. We have a 13-year-old boy and his brother who dropped $50 on two hockey games and Monday night football. This is extremely serious, with this kind of accessibility. It's getting out of hand.

Now, this particular lottery has only been launched in the Metro area at the present time. What I'm asking the Premier to do is give us his personal assurance, notwithstanding the fact that he'll be leaving the country for a while and going off to the Orient, that while he's gone he will instruct the minister to draft legislation, to bring in a law, to issue regulations -- to do whatever it takes to prohibit minors in this province from gambling on sporting events through their corner store. Premier, will you give us that undertaking today?

Hon Mr Rae: I say to the honourable member that I don't know exactly what the legal situation is with respect to the lottery under, for example, the 649 or all the other various lotteries. I don't know what the law is. I know this is a confession that leaders are not supposed to make, but I would make it to him. I don't have any briefing material saying, "Premier, be prepared for a question with respect to lottery tickets and the sale to minors." I will say to the member in good faith that the examples he's -- I mean, I have three kids. We all can understand on a human level the kind of issue he's raising, and we'll have to look at what would be involved in dealing with it. I want to say to the honourable member that I take his question seriously and I also take his acronym with a grain of salt.

1430

ONTARIO HYDRO PRESIDENT

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Yesterday, when asked by reporters if he thought that a $1.2-million severance was a fair settlement for Mr Holt, the minister said he had no idea, that he was not interested in the severance and that he liked being in the dark. These were the comments of the Minister of Energy to the people of Ontario: He wasn't interested, he had no ideas and he liked being in the dark.

Mr Minister, you're responsible to the people of Ontario and to its ratepayers. It is your responsibility to be interested, it is your responsibility to have ideas and it is your responsibility to get out of the dark.

You had a very effective input into the removing of Mr Holt. You and Mr Eliesen decided he must go. Your letter regarding Mr Holt to Mr Eliesen was a directive to the board. While the concentration of business and everyone else is to cut costs for business as an incentive to the province of Ontario, how can you justify, Mr Minister, a $1.2-million retirement package and then turn around and give $425,000 for a replacement?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Energy): The member for Lanark-Renfrew has an extremely short memory. I help him recall Bill 118, which he was very vocal about when we were debating that bill here in the House and all through the committee hearings. He was very vocal about his concern that this government would stick its nose too far into the operations of Ontario Hydro.

The Power Corporation Act vests the authority around the president -- salary, severance and so on -- with the board of Ontario Hydro. The board of Ontario Hydro gave the authority to discuss retirement with the president, and the chair and the president reached a mutual agreement.

It's my understanding that Mr Holt not only arrived at a mutually acceptable retirement agreement with Hydro, but that that agreement is a confidential agreement that falls under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: By law, I don't have the right to know what the content of that agreement is, and the member, I'd think, would --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the minister take his seat, please? I ask the member for Etobicoke West to please come to order.

Had the minister concluded his response? The member for Lanark-Renfrew with supplementary.

Mr Jordan: Based on that response from the minister, I can only assume that the minister really does like to remain in the dark. The minister has already denied having had any involvement with the firing of Al Holt, while sources on the board contend that he directed that action. Now the minister claims he has no responsibility for how much money is spent on severance packages. Mr Minister, for the sake of Ontario Hydro ratepayers, who will have to pay for these severances, can you tell us who is accountable to the people of Ontario Hydro?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member well knows that Ontario Hydro is accountable to the government and has been ever since its creation.

As the Premier said earlier, the Conservative government for 42 years, and subsequently the Liberals for five years, by their lack of direction of Ontario Hydro helped us to run up a $32-billion capital debt; helped us to have a $10-billion overrun at Darlington; put us in a mess that is going to be very difficult for this government and Hydro to work out of. This government is taking the actions required to ensure that the management strategies in Ontario Hydro are dramatically changed so we never get ourselves into this kind of mess again.

SEWAGE TREATMENT

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment, but I'll put it to the Premier. The Premier may refer it to the Minister of the Environment, if she's here.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Kormos: A couple of weeks ago the Minister of the Environment very graciously met with Mayor Longo from Thorold and some of his staff about the crisis around Beaverdams and the sewer project. This is an incident that goes back some five, six or seven years now, because the Ministry of the Environment had targeted Beaverdams as an area that needed sewer installations. There was a serious health problem. Lake Gibson, which the neighbourhood is immediately adjacent to, because of the seepage from the septic tanks and inadequate septic systems is becoming full of -- well, it's becoming full of faeces.

The Minister of the Environment graciously met with the mayor to explain that no, notwithstanding that thousands and thousands and thousands of provincial taxpayers' dollars had been spent on consulting and engineering and designing the system, there wasn't any money to install the sewers and that the same sewage and seepage was going to continue to flow into Lake Gibson. Can the minister please tell me and tell the good folks at Beaverdams that their project will be short-listed for the next grant of funding so the sewage into Lake Gibson can be halted?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): I certainly am aware of the member's interest in both Beaverdams and in sewage. I have had a discussion both with him and with the representatives of Thorold, who presented their concerns to me. But I know also that the member will be well aware that frequently priorities are set by municipalities depending on what they see as their needs, and often sewer replacement often does not reach the top of the municipal priority list.

With respect to our funding, as with every other ministry, we don't have as much money as we would like to spend on all of the needs for sewer infrastructure across this province. We are carefully looking at our priorities and, as I assured the municipal representatives from Welland, we understand the problem and we will attempt to deal with it as soon as we can.

Mr Kormos: The minister is right. The longer I spend as a member of the Legislature, the more I learn about sewage.

People like Janet Gatowski and the Beaverdams Ratepayers Association and the mayor of Thorold are trying to do what they can to be helpful. The problem is they, like so many other applicants for grants and funding assistance, get the proverbial Dear John/Dear Jane letter at the end, with no opportunity to be advised as to how they failed to meet the criteria or what they have to do next time around to make that short list.

Now, we know it's not a matter of who you know. We know it surely is a matter of qualifying. Will you please work with the municipality, with Janet Gatowski and with the Beaverdams Ratepayers Association to help them prepare a submission that is going to be successful, rather than one that's going to be discharged into the waste system?

Hon Mrs Grier: I'm delighted with the number of municipalities with which we have worked to resolve long-outstanding environmental problems over the last two years. We certainly appreciate the improved communication, discussion and cooperation between my ministry and municipalities that we have demonstrated over the last two years. I can assure the member that as we struggle to deal with our priorities, to deal with the funding situation that exists, we will certainly remember the Beaverdams.

1440

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I also have a question for the Premier. As members know, the Premier is jetting off to Asia later this week, and meanwhile, back at the ranch here in Ontario, the unemployment rate in northern Ontario is 18%. The province's forest industry, which has an annual payroll of $2.5 billion, employs 64,000 people in this province, creates a $2-billion surplus in trade for this province and has a $5-billion gross domestic product, is suffering devastating effects from this recession. It's being left out in the cold by this government.

This sentiment is underscored by a letter I have from the Ontario Forest Industries Association.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Who's it addressed to?

Mr Brown: It's addressed to the Premier. "It was with great disappointment and frustration that we heard of your inability to meet with us on Friday." That was October 31. "The Ontario Forest Industries Association waited five months for a 20-minute meeting, and a mere 20 hours before that meeting was to be, we were notified that it had been cancelled."

Mr Premier, executives and people from all over this province had come to Toronto specifically for this meeting. The group has heard that the earliest it could be rescheduled was January. That wasn't good enough. They made a lot of phone calls and your office relented and said, "Gee, we can meet with you" when you're back from Asia.

Premier, why can't the forest industry get in to see you in a timely fashion?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I spoke with Mr Alexander of St Marys Paper. I was in Sault Ste Marie on Thursday at the opening of a cogenerating station in which Algoma and St Marys Paper are involved.

I will be quite candid with the member. It's not my staff's fault; it's my own instructions. At the conclusion of the referendum discussion I said: "I'm exhausted. I'd like to try to cut down on the schedule a bit this week." They carried out my instructions. I didn't realize the meeting with the paper industry had been cancelled.

I spoke to Mr Alexander on Friday. I apologized to him. I said to him, "I will see you as soon as I possibly can." When I spoke to Mr Alexander on Friday, he seemed to indicate to me that he understood. He obviously regretted -- the member's got the letter. The first I've seen of the letter is just now, but I knew you'd be asking me because it was copied both to your leader and to the leader of the third party. I've apologized personally, and I can only tell the member that I think a meeting has been scheduled for December 3. It's not going to be a short meeting; it's going to be a long meeting and I look forward to it very much. That's the clearest answer I can give you.

Mr Brown: Mr Premier, Ontario needs you here. Forest regeneration in this province has been abandoned by your Minister of Natural Resources. Jobs for northern residents, who depend upon the strength of the forest industry for survival, are at serious risk. Your government is cutting funding to regeneration in the forest management agreements and slashing it on crown land. Tree seedling programs have been cut back. There will be a huge environmental deficit when you leave this place.

Given all the problems we're having in northern Ontario, given all the problems we're having in the recession across Ontario, should the forest industry perhaps have asked to meet you in Osaka?

Hon Mr Rae: I must confess that I've rarely felt as wanted by members of the opposition as I've felt over the last few days. I'm not used to this outpouring of affection, except of course from among my own colleagues. Getting it from the opposition is a rarity.

I would say to the honourable member, I've apologized and I've apologized again with respect to what happened at the meeting on Friday. In retrospect, of course, I wish very much that the meeting had simply gone ahead.

I will say to the honourable member that between now and when I'll be meeting in December, the minister is meeting with them on an ongoing basis, as is Mr Valley, the assistant deputy minister who's responsible for coordinating the strategy with the forest industry. It's an industry that's in deep change. We understand that. We're working very closely with the industry and I'm hoping there will be even more initiatives we can announce over the months ahead.

I've already indicated to the member exactly what happened, what steps I'm taking to deal with the issue, and, as I say, I appreciate his desire to have me around as much as possible.

TORONTO ISLANDS COMMUNITY

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the minister of market value assessment, the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I read in the newspaper today, rather astoundingly, that you are trying to buy off Metropolitan Toronto council by offering it 10 acres of land at Highway 401 and Keele. For that 10 acres of land, you asked them to give up property on the Toronto Islands so there can be a $2.5-million expenditure for capital projects to build an island public school for 174 students, most of whom, as I understand it, will come from the mainland. It will increase the cost by $160,000 annually to operate that school.

We know full well it is the socialist élite squatters who live on the Toronto Islands. We know who won every poll in that specific riding. We know full well exactly what this government owes this group of people, considering the sweetheart, lottery-like deal they cut on the islands for those residents.

Can't you think of a better use of public funds than $2.5 million and $160,000 annually in education? Couldn't you think of a better use that would have serviced more students than the 174 kids of the socialist élite on the Toronto Islands?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I think this government, right from the beginning of its election, and quite frankly when we were in opposition for many years, shared the same view that Larry Grossman had about protecting the island community and making sure the island community could be maintained and preserved, because we see the value in it. We see that there's affordable housing in an important community for all of Metropolitan Toronto. We agree with the position Larry Grossman has taken, and all our actions around the Toronto Islands issue have been to preserve that island community, just as Larry Grossman said he wanted to do.

Mr Stockwell: Well, we know that Larry Grossman has more influence on this government than the taxpayers of this province have. The simple fact is that it's a $2.5-million capital improvement. It's $160,000 annually overspent for a school that's proven to be unnecessary and only motivated by the socialist élite who live on the island.

Mr Speaker, we can all give you list after list of schools that need to be improved; of reconstruction; of new construction; of children who are being bused one, two and three districts away. Clearly, what needs to be said at this time is that if you happen to live on the island and you happen to be a squatter, if you happen to win the lottery and get a 100-year lease from this government, you can also be guaranteed that the education facilities will be built there, regardless of priority.

Mr Minister, my question to you is, where exactly did this expenditure stack up in the needs of all those other people in this province whose education buildings and facilities have been put on hold by your government and your minister because there's not enough money or they don't happen to be socialists?

Hon Mr Cooke: What this government is doing is in the tradition of the last three governments of trying to preserve the island community. I guess what surprises me is the kind of language that is used by the member, which shows how extreme, how right-wing the Tory caucus is now compared to the old days under Bill Davis and Larry Grossman, when it was a progressive group of people in this province.

1450

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Just recently in my riding, on Friday, I was visited by an independent business person within the --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. To whom is your question directed?

Mr Bisson: I'll try it again. It's to the Minister of Labour. Mr Minister, last Friday I had a visit from a local business person within my riding who was quite upset, to say the least, in regard to the treatment he had gotten from a particular survey that he was asked to answer in regard to the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

What the individual had told me, and I have every reason to believe that he was right, was that this particular business federation came to his place of business and asked him to answer a series of questions in regard to the performance of the NDP government, and specifically its performance around the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

When the individual tried to score the government in a positive way because he believes the changes that we're making to the Labour Relations Act are positive, he was told to score us lower. I'm just wondering if you're aware of that.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): No, I'm not specifically aware of it, but I am aware of the survey that has been used widely by members across the way in this House, which contained a disclaimer saying that the survey may very well have been influenced by the desire of people not to see this legislation through.

Mr Bisson: Again to the Minister of Labour, I then went and spoke to a number of local business people within the community of Timmins. Unfortunately, some of those people to whom I talked also had the same kinds of stories to tell; that is, basically, some of the information they were being presented in regard to taking a look at the effects the Ontario Labour Relations Act would have on the Ontario economy was somewhat flawed. According to one other person I talked to when this particular point was raised, it was found that the information that was presented by this federation was quite inaccurate.

I'm just wondering what kind of effect you think that has in regard to some of the surveys we see out there, such as Ernst and Young's and others, in regard to the legitimacy of some of those surveys.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The other thing that's also obvious is that the opinion survey -- and that's the best I'll call it -- that was done also indicated six items that were supposed to be in the legislation the province would be doing with Bill 40, and only two of them actually exist in the legislation. So I think it's a clear indication of the disservice that's done by this kind of opinion survey.

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier. You will recall that following the referendum, you indicated that your number one priority was the economy, and you'd be devoting, I guess, your single-minded attention to it.

This Thursday, as the Premier knows, we will have perhaps one of the most important economic announcements in the province, and we will hear the first six months' financial results. The government has already indicated that the revenue is coming in lower than it expected and that it would be looking at cuts.

My question to you is this, Premier: Recognizing that this is your number one priority and recognizing that this Thursday will be one of the most important economic statements for this year, will you at least consider shortening your Asian trip so that you will be here for the people of Ontario to outline your economic plans on this most important day, this Thursday?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The Treasurer, who is the Deputy Premier and who has been at my right hand --

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I think it's your short hand.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I hate to bring it to you; you don't have a right hand.

Hon Mr Rae: -- no, no, my right hand, believe me -- for the time since we've been in government and who has been my colleague in battles political and otherwise for a decade, has my full confidence and has the full confidence of all of us with his ability and his integrity. He'll be making the presentation to the House whenever it's to be made.

He's also been leading the discussions in policy and priorities committee at the treasury board meetings, as well as in the cabinet meetings themselves, in caucus and indeed in the wider public.

I'm sure the honourable member for Scarborough-Agincourt shares my views with respect to the integrity and the discipline with which the Treasurer has taken on his responsibilities since I offered him the post of Treasurer in September 1990.

Mr Phillips: It's you, Premier, who said that your attention would be devoted to the economy. It's you who said you wanted to play the leadership role. It's you who said you would be tackling the economy with all your energies. It wasn't the Treasurer, it was you. I'm holding you accountable, Premier.

It happens that last year the second-quarter financial results were out October 24. We now find, by coincidence I gather, that they will come out the day the Premier leaves. I have complete confidence in the Treasurer, but it seems like an odd coincidence that you would choose to leave the country the day that the most important financial results come out, the day which would have given you an opportunity to demonstrate some economic leadership for the people of the province, and I would ask you this question.

I know that you will be sticking to your $9.9-billion deficit. We have now the numbers from the federal government on revenues, on income tax -- personal income tax, corporate income tax -- the goods and services tax, which is comparable to the provincial sales tax. I assume you'll be sticking to that number. What sort of cuts in spending will your Treasurer be announcing as your plane wings to the west?

Hon Mr Rae: I would have thought that the honourable member, with his sophistication, would understand the fact that Canada is not an island, Ontario is not an island. We live in a world in which financial information passes at the speed of a moment, in which information is shared.

There's a recession on in Europe, the Japanese economy is slowing down and we see some positive signs in the economy here and in the United States which are starting quite clearly. We also recognize the need for financial discipline and the very real difficulties that we face as a result of the Liberal inheritance, of which the honourable member was an integral part in his period as a five-year member of the Liberal cabinet. He knows full well the challenge that we face, and I can assure him that the Treasurer and I are working hand in glove as we approach this issue, both here and on the international financial markets.

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

PETITIONS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Eglinton.

[Applause]

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I was somewhat surprised by the round of applause but thank my colleagues, because I think they know what my petition is about.

This is another petition signed by concerned residents of the city of Toronto:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Metropolitan Toronto council has passed an ill-conceived market value assessment plan; and

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

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

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

"Whereas Toronto businesses are already paying the highest property taxes in North America and will be devastated by further increases,

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

Mr Speaker, I have signed this petition, which I heartily agree with.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. If you have any conversations, please hold them outside.

1500

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have a petition.

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

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, oppose Bill 40 and draw attention to the following:

"We object to the government's assumption that the only good workplace is a unionized workplace.

"We believe the balance of power is already tilted in favour of labour and that further tinkering will result in fewer investment dollars being spent in Ontario, loss of jobs and revenue and an increase of tension between labour and business.

"We believe that Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession and that employers are already being challenged with existing and proposed legislation.

"We, the citizens of Ontario, did not ask for these changes.

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that Bill 40 be revoked immediately."

These 250 names have been signed by individuals in Kitchener-Waterloo and Cambridge, and I here affix my signature as well. They are from employees.

GAMBLING

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I have a petition here that was sent to me from the Vineland United Mennonite Church in Vineland, just down the street from me. It's a petition to the members of provincial Parliament of Ontario. It's on a proposal to license a permanent gambling establishment in the Niagara Peninsula.

"We, the undersigned, hereby register our opposition in the strongest of terms to the proposal to establish and license a permanent gambling enterprise in the Niagara Peninsula. We believe the need of keeping this area as a place where family and holiday time will be enriched with quality of life. Such gaming establishments will be detrimental to the fabric of the society in Ontario and in the Niagara region in particular. I believe that licensed gambling will cause increased hardship on many families and will be an invitation for more criminal activity. Our signatures here attached are asking you not to license gambling anywhere in the Niagara Peninsula."

I affix my signature to this petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): I have a petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly, which reads:

"We, the undersigned, hereby register our opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act. We believe in the need to keep 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 cause increased hardship on many families. The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

That petition is signed by a couple of dozen or so members of my constituency and by me.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

"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 this 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 the men and women who police our communities as it does about people who work in factories, offices and elsewhere."

That's signed by several hundred people, and it joins those 50,000 names that were submitted last week in this Legislature in the same petition. I, too, have affixed my name to it.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Labour Relations Act was last updated in 1975; and

"Whereas the Labour Relations Act should reflect the needs of today's workplace and today's workforce,

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

"To pass Bill 40, An Act to amend the Ontario Labour Relations Act, without further delay."

This petition has been signed by constituents of Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo, and I am proud to affix my name to this petition.

GAMBLING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is to members of the provincial Parliament. It's about a proposal to license a permanent gambling establishment in the Niagara Peninsula. It comes from Carleton United Church in St Catharines.

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to the proposal to establish and license a permanent gambling enterprise in the Niagara Peninsula. I believe in the need of keeping this area as a place where family and holiday time will be enriched with quality of life. Such gaming establishments will be detrimental to the fabric of the society in Ontario and in the Niagara region in particular. I believe that licensed gambling will cause increased hardship on many families and will be an invitation for more criminal activity. By my signature here attached I ask you not to license gambling anywhere in the Niagara Peninsula."

I affix my name to this petition, as I'm in agreement with the congregation of Carleton United Church.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): 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 the men and women who police our communities as it does about people who work in factories, offices and elsewhere."

This is signed by 30 people, and I too affix my signature.

GAMBLING

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by 102 members mostly of the Hebron Christian Reformed Church in Whitby. They are hard-working, excellent people. Their petition reads:

"Whereas the Ontario government is considering legalizing gambling casinos; and

"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impacts on society...; and

"Whereas both actions are against New Democrat principles and against our religious value system;

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

"That the government stop looking to casinos and video lottery and betting terminals...."

ABORTION CLINIC

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition signed by 37 residents of my community. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

I've affixed my signature thereto.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas independent and non-partisan economic studies have concluded that the proposed changes to Ontario labour legislation will increase job losses; and

"Whereas they will cause a decline in investment in Ontario; and

"Whereas they will seriously undermine the recovery and the maintenance of a sound economic environment in the province,

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

"That the Ontario government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to the labour legislation in the best interests of the people of Ontario."

I have here more than 1,000 names. They have been signed by small business people and employees throughout the province of Ontario. As I say, there are more than 1,000 names.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by 52 residents of Middlesex in regard to the arbitrator's report for the greater London area.

These petitioners respectfully ask the Legislature of Ontario to set aside the arbitrator's report because it does not reflect the expressed wishes of the majority of people living in London and Middlesex, it awards far too extensive an area of land to the city of London and it will jeopardize agricultural land in the county of Middlesex, the viability of the county of Middlesex and our rural way of life.

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

1510

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario to "reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendations of a massive annexation of land by the city of London," signed by 37 residents of Middlesex county and signed by myself.

WATER QUALITY

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas we are all taxpayers of the village of Oil Springs and demand better water, the village is presently providing water to its residents from wells within the village, but the water-table is low, the water pressure has dropped, the water is cloudy and dirty and unhealthy,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"To receive financial assistance from the province of Ontario to bring pipeline water to the village of Oil Springs and from the town of Petrolia's water system."

I have attached my signature.

LAYOFFS

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition which reads:

"Whereas the general level of unemployment in Ontario is extremely high and has caused severe hardship for individuals and families;

"Whereas hundreds of firms in Ontario have filed for bankruptcy and have had their employees join the ranks of the unemployment rolls;

"Whereas youth unemployment is higher in Ontario than in all other provinces;

"Whereas General Motors may announce several plant closings with resulting job losses this month and the presence of the Premier in the province is necessary to persuade General Motors to keep all of its Ontario operations open,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to cancel his impending trip to Asia and to remain in North America to present the Ontario GM workers' case to General Motors officials and to respond to important and urgent questions about the Ontario economy in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario."

This is signed by a number of concerned individuals of the province of Ontario.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): A petition to the members of provincial Parliament re amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act proposed wide-open Sunday shopping and elimination of Sunday as a legal holiday:

"We, the undersigned, hereby register our opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of legal holiday in the Retail Business Holidays Act. We believe in the need of 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 cause increased hardship on many families. The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

This is has been signed by approximately 30 people from Kitchener and Waterloo and I hereby affix my signature.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS ENDANGERED, THREATENED AND VULNERABLE SPECIES ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LES ESPÈCES VULNÉRABLES, MENACÉES OU EN VOIE DE DISPARITION

On motion by Mr Wiseman, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 91, An Act to revise the Endangered Species Act and amend the Law relating to Endangered Species / Loi révisant la Loi sur les espèces en voie de disparition et modifiant les lois relatives aux espèces en voie de disparition

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Do you have any brief remarks?

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): The purpose of this bill is to replace the Endangered Species Act. The act currently provides protection to endangered species of animals and plants. The bill extends this protection to threatened and vulnerable species. A board is established to advise the Minister of Natural Resources as to which species should be declared endangered, threatened or vulnerable and as to possible recovery plans to ensure the survival of the species.

A fund is also established to help cover the costs of the administration of the act. In addition, a minimum fine is provided for violations of the act. The bill also amends the Environmental Assessment Act to provide that the provisions of that act apply to any project that may affect the habitat of endangered, threatened or vulnerable species.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Introduction of bills? On a point of order.

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, I wonder if the member who just introduced the bill has included the New Democratic Party on the list of endangered species to be protected under this bill.

Mr Wiseman: In fact, I've included the Liberals and Tories.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Introduction of bills? Orders of the day.

OPPOSITION DAY

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Harris moved opposition day motion number 3:

Whereas the NDP government's amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act, known as Bill 40, will kill jobs and destroy investment in Ontario;

And whereas Bill 40 ignores the rights of individual workers by not legislating a secret ballot vote for certification, ratification of a collective agreement and the decision to strike;

And whereas a Progressive Conservative government will repeal Bill 40 following the next election and initiate a fair and balanced tripartite process to review labour relations in Ontario,

Therefore, this House calls upon the NDP government to immediately withdraw Bill 40.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Shall the motion carry? It might just carry.

In anticipation that it won't carry without debate, perhaps I'll need to use some persuasive argument as to why the government will do itself a big favour, will certainly do a favour to the economy of the province of Ontario, and perhaps more importantly, will do a favour to the working men and women of this province if it will withdraw Bill 40 today and proceed with a truly meaningful discussion with organized labour, with labour that is not unionized, with business, with those involved in training and educating our workforce and with the government on how we are truly going to make our province more competitive and how we are going to make sure that our companies can grow, our companies can expand and our companies can make a profit.

Then there will be more money there for workers. There will be something that unions and management can sit down and debate, if you like, about whether shareholders or management or workers -- how much of the pie will all of them get, but at least there will be a pie to talk about.

Before we can move to that, this bill will need to be withdrawn. I believe that the day a government -- this one or a future government -- has the courage to put aside vested interests, to put aside who owes what to whom and truly comes together, not with ideology or philosophy or left-wing/right-wing, but with some common sense, to examine how Ontario is going to prosper again, how we are going to regain our position within Canada and within North America, and indeed within the world, where we were, as the slogan used to be, Yours to Discover -- we were where so many people wanted to raise a family, wanted to work, wanted to go to school, wanted to set up a factory, wanted to locate a business. Currently, we are not. We are not in as enviable a position today vis-à-vis other provinces, other countries, as we were for so many years, and Bill 40 is one of the reasons.

1520

The direction and the reason for Bill 40, and how this government is proceeding: First of all, it's job-killing legislation. Every single study that's been done points out that jobs will be lost, some more than others. In one Ernst and Young study, 250,000 jobs are threatened.

Nobody can say for sure how many jobs. There will always be arguments: "That's because of free trade," or, "That's because of something Taiwan did," or, "That's Brian Mulroney's fault," or, "It's because of taxes," or other reasons. Nobody will ultimately know for sure why a company invested in another province, another state or another country, why they shunned Ontario, why they didn't come here or why they may have left.

Nobody will ever be able to say precisely how many jobs, but every study that's been done says jobs will be lost. Our own survey that we did -- our party did -- I believe was pretty unbiased, pretty straightforward. It was by mail. There was certainly no pressure put on anyone. We surveyed those in the job creation business, businesses large and small across Ontario. Eighty-eight per cent said it will cost jobs, that they themselves will not be able to grow, expand or hire more workers; 81% say Ontario will be a less attractive place to invest.

I know Bob White disagrees with that, or at least says he disagrees with that, and so does Bob Rae: The Premier said he disagrees with that. But it is not Bob White or Bob Rae who is planning to invest five cents of his own money; it's the private sector. Those were the people we were talking to. They're the ones whose opinions count.

Will the private sector invest? There's no point in asking someone who has no plans to invest; no point in asking the public sector. You ask those who are in a position to invest or plan to invest somewhere. Those risk-takers, those who are prepared to invest their money, say no. If ever the government needs an indication, if they talked to their own public sector workers, unionized, are saying about their own pension money: "Keep your mitts off our pension money. We don't trust you or the government to invest our money."

If ever you need further proof that the policies of this government are not working towards an advantage to getting a return on investment, just ask your own unionized workforce that works for the government of Ontario and what it is saying about giving the money to government -- the pension money -- to invest. They say, "Keep your mitts off our money."

There is a need to create jobs, obviously: So many have been lost in the past few years in this province. If you want the private sector to create them, and I suggest we do, because government can't create them -- you've gone $10 billion into debt and every time you go a billion more in debt more jobs are lost, so obviously you can't create them. You can't create more than you're losing. The more money you borrow, the more you tax to try and spend and create jobs as a public sector, then the more private sector jobs are lost as a result.

I suggest you do want the private sector to create jobs. Then you're going to have to have a more positive environment, a more positive climate in this province than there is today. Bill 40 is one of those bills about which the private sector, the job creators, are saying, "If you proceed with this, we are less likely to invest in the province of Ontario." That, in and of itself, should be enough to say, "Whoa, let's scrap this legislation and look at another way to bring business and labour together."

The second reason we've introduced the motion at this time is that the government motives for the legislation are very suspect. It will not create jobs. There's not one single study anywhere in the province that says it will create jobs. Every study that's been done says it will lose jobs. Not one study, anywhere, even one done by Bob White, says this will not destroy jobs. There's not one study.

So we ask, then why are we proceeding if it's not going to create a job? When we look at 88% of card-carrying union members saying, "We don't agree with this legislation; we're opposed to giving Bob White the supreme, ultimate authority to sit down and cut a deal with the government, the Premier, or even the chairman of GM; we're opposed to that; we want a democratic right, a secret ballot right to vote," then we ask why you're proceeding. Then we look at the union support of the union leadership for the NDP; we look at the free labour at election time, and we look at the money and we sense a motive here. We sense the motive.

We sense that, Bob White, representing the union leadership -- we use him as epitomizing all the union leaders who are for this -- Bob Mackenzie and Bob Rae, you've cooked up this deal for the union bosses. That's who benefits, not the working men and women, not card-carrying union members, not those working men and women who are not workers and certainly not those who are out of work. Because the motives are suspect, we are asking you to withdraw this legislation.

We are asking at this time to scrap the legislation because we in this caucus, in this party, as we have for so many years, as we have for so many decades of governing this province, as we do now in opposition, as we do now today, continue to fight for the worker. We continue to represent the worker. We continue to fight for the worker. We're not anti-union, as some of the NDP will say. They'll say, "You're anti-union." We're not anti-union. It was our government that brought in much of the legislation that encouraged collective bargaining, encouraged and supported the right of workers to unionize and to bargain collectively. Our party brought that in. We stand behind that legislation. We're here today.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): Talk about revisionist history. You brought it in with same enthusiasm Robarts went for medicare.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Who did it? Remember the government that did it.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order.

Mr Harris: You know, some members of the NDP are -- was there some other government that brought in the legislation? It was the Progressive Conservative government. So we are asking, at this time, to repeal this legislation.

We go back to the changes that Mr Robarts made, for example, with a majority government, no gun to his head. He wanted to empower workers. He wanted more jobs. He wanted workers to get a fair share. We are pro-worker. We were pro-worker then, when we brought in the legislation; we are pro-worker today. We are fighting.

Now that the NDP has abandoned the working men and women of this province in favour of the élite, the union leadership, the ones who are directing the money to them, the ones who are directing the free workers to them at election time, now that you've abandoned the working men and women of this province, it's more important than ever that we in this party speak up for, represent and fight for working men and women in this province.

Whether they're unionized, choose to unionize or whether they're non-unionized, we will continue to fight for what is in the best interests of working men and women in this province. This Bill 40 is for the union bosses. It's not for the working rank and file members. We are calling and we insisted on calling for secret ballot rights for the workers so they'll have a democratic right to vote without pressure, a free democratic right to a secret ballot. There is no more fundamental right in democracy, in free societies, in free democracies anywhere in the world. This bill disallows that, prevents that from happening.

There is no amount of justification for any union leaders to argue that they not only need the authority, the power to represent the workers, but that they need to be able to make important decisions affecting whether those workers will be able to feed their families or not, affecting whether or not they'll be able to work, without a secret ballot vote. That is unacceptable. If ever that is running roughshod, trampling over the rights of working men and women in this province, that is it.

You can't imagine how distressed I am that any political party, let alone this political party, obviously, when it said it was going to put people first, is now saying: "No, we're putting Bob White first. We know what side our bread is buttered on. We're putting them first ahead of workers." So we are calling for a secret ballot, so the worker has a democratic right to vote without pressure from the union bosses.

1530

There's a fourth reason why we're introducing this motion at this time. It's the balance between management and labour that's required. A lot of people have talked about this. Bob Rae, the Premier, has the rhetoric right. I guess he's reading polls and seeing what's going on around the world, so they take from that the rhetoric. But it's not followed up with the actions.

Again, perhaps it's because of the motives of the NDP, that are so suspect. They obviously do not have the interests of the rank and file at heart. The rank and file want jobs, and they want good-paying jobs. We need cooperation between business and labour, not confrontation. This bill creates confrontation. This bill tips the balance of power in favour of the union management, away from the worker, away from the rank-and-file union member, and away from the investor and the management and the employer towards the union leader.

When I look at the motive, I look at what's happening around the world. The Premier refers from time to time about how labour and management cooperate in Germany. He's used that country, he's used Europe, he's used Japan. They're 20 or 30 years ahead of this government. In many ways their unions are 20 or 30 years ahead of the union leadership, not the rank-and-file union member, but some of the union leadership -- and not all, of course; quite frankly, there are some very progressive union leaders in this province. They're not the ones being listened to today, unfortunately.

The Premier doesn't realize that this coming together of management and unions, of management and workers, doesn't happen when you give power to one side or the other, to bring the other side in on their hands and knees. In fact, unions and organized labour today have enough power to bankrupt any company in Ontario, collectively to bankrupt the province. Management has that power too. If we are not able to facilitate, as the third party, as representatives of the people, as the government, how management and labour are going to check whatever powers they have at the door and come together to work cooperatively on how that company, how that sector, how this province are going to be able to compete in a changing world marketplace, how we're going to be able to not only survive but grow and prosper and take advantage of the many opportunities that are presented to us, if we're not prepared to do that, then we're going to fall by the wayside.

This government seems to idly sit by and say: "Oh, well, when the recession's over, then we'll balance the budget. When the recession's over, then we want the union leadership to have this power." As you sit back and wait for the recession to be over, the world is passing you by. Major restructuring is taking place. These jobs are popping up in other provinces and other states and other countries. There are different jobs from the ones that were lost. They require more skills, more educated workers. They're new technologies. They are jobs that are able, through a new plant, new machinery, to compete on a world market. They're simply not taking place here, very few of them are. Some do, in spite of the government, but obviously more are leaving, because we're losing 500 jobs a day for every day you've been in office.

Because this bill furthers that confrontation between management and labour, because it drives them further apart in this coming together that must take place, because the only leadership you've been able to show on this is not, "How do I facilitate this as Premier, as Minister of Labour, as minister of industry and trade;" the only leadership you can say is, "Boy, we'll give the unions so much power that management will have to come on their hands and knees to give them whatever they want."

Quite frankly, those that have a choice about whether they want to work in that environment are saying: "No, thank you. I prefer other provinces. I prefer other states. I prefer other countries. That's where I will invest my money. That's where I will go." For that reason, we are calling today for the government to repeal this bill.

Finally, because I know many others wish to speak to this, because of the four reasons I have mentioned and others -- killing jobs; the motive, the NDP payback to the union bosses; that it doesn't protect the democratic rights of workers; because it creates confrontation and tips the balance in favour of labour, that delicate balance between labour and management -- I have stated very clearly on behalf of my caucus and my party that after the next election, we will repeal Bill 40. We will scrap it. We will end it.

We don't want to see two and a half more years while we're waiting of confrontation between management and workers before that takes place. We don't want to see two and a half years of pain and suffering and job losses, of families going through the hardship and the traumatic transition. It's traumatic enough when you have to change your job, as many will have to; but the only change that's taking place right now is losing the old job when there's no new one to replace it.

So for the next two and a half years, we would prefer the government to put its efforts into how we attract that new job that's going to replace the one that's disappearing. For two and a half years, this province can't stand that our families, our individuals, our workers can lose 500 jobs a day and that we not replace them with the restructured jobs that are growing up all around the world. Those jurisdictions that recognize that take advantage of it, and we want you to put your efforts there.

Because we don't want two more years of job loss, two more years of confrontation, two more years of hardening of positions, we ask the government right now: Why put our province and our people and our workers through this for two years when we're going to scrap it anyway? We're going to change it right after the next election. Why not do it now? Why not get a head start on the restructuring and on the climate that's necessary in this province for private sector investment and job creation?

I tell you, it's in your interest to do this, it's in the NDP's interest to do this, because the way they're going they won't elect one member after the next election. They won't re-elect one, not one.

So on behalf of families, on behalf of the working men and women of this province, we ask this government to withdraw this bill today and get down to the real challenge before us of creating the jobs we so desperately need and want and that our working men and women deserve in this province.

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): It's a pleasure to rise to speak to the motion put forth by the leader of the third party this afternoon.

Armed with dubious studies and questionable public opinion polls, business lobbies and of course their political allies suggest that this law would ruin Ontario, with firms fleeing and honest working people left jobless. However, I would like to suggest that most of the apocalyptic predictions are based on surveys led by corporate chief executive officers and, again, their political allies.

It's a historical fact that the corporate élite has never been shy about defending its own interests. Back in 1920 Canadian businesses raised $1 million -- and that was big bucks back then -- to wage a major propaganda campaign against rising free trade sentiment and its main proponent, the Progressive Party.

A quarter century later, with the CCF striking a chord with Canadians dreaming of a better world after the Second World War, business again mobilized. Between 1942 and 1945, business launched the largest single propaganda campaign in Canadian history to discredit the CCF, a name still familiar to us today. There was barely a corporation in the country that did not actively throw itself into a vicious and hysterical smear campaign; again, their political allies. So pathological was the fear of the then Ontario Tory leader George Drew that he actually maintained during those years a secret police agency to spy on CCFers and other political figures they perceived to be left-wing.

1540

As recently as the 1988 federal election, corporate Canada intervened monolithically in a ferocious effort to re-elect the Mulroney government and save the free trade deal; 162 corporations made donations to the Canadian Alliance for Trade and Job Opportunities. Today over 60 corporations refuse to divulge the amount of their contributions. We know that CP, Alcan and Shell all gave $250,000 each; Noranda, Royal Bank and Imperial Oil all gave $200,000; and just about anybody who is anybody on Bay Street chipped in tens of thousands of dollars more. The alliance itself admitted to an over-$5-million war chest.

Of course, their fearmongering worked beautifully, just as it did 50 years ago against the CCF. Obviously, many business people hope they'll be equally successful in forcing the government of Ontario to back down on virtually every progressive move it wants to make.

It is inevitable that big business and the NDP will not see eye to eye on certain issues of social justice or income redistribution. But they should come to some understanding with this government. If they could tone down the rhetoric and give the government some room, I'm sure a successful accommodation of interests could be obtained.

However, their strategy continues. We're being subjected to the shameless fearmongering tactics of yesteryear over the proposed changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. We see hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent by lobby groups speculating wildly and complaining that any changes in Ontario labour laws would be detrimental to our economy. They know that's not true, and my colleagues, I'm sure, will allude to that later.

There is absolutely no justification for the argument that the OLRA reforms are an obstacle to the Ontario government's commitment to actively promote jobs and invest in the province. In fact, despite the worst recession in over 50 years, we have had nearly $12 billion in foreign investment from over 475 firms investing in this province in the last year. In addition, the Ford Motor Co has recently invested over $2 billion in this province.

Bill 40 and unions didn't frighten them away, because they know that unions are not radical; they are essentially conservative organizations which help maintain a middle class that is solid and stable. It's no accident that the world's two most economically dynamic, socially conservative and middle-class nations, Japan and Germany, are extensively unionized.

For the corporate élite and of course their legislative allies, the Liberals and the Tories, a province without unions may sound very tempting, but in the long run it's bad business and bad politics.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I'm pleased to join in the debate on this resolution before the Legislature. In the time allotted, I hope to address some of my concerns to two areas: One will be process generally, and secondly will be substance.

After listening to the previous comments, I can well understand the very deep concern many people have throughout the province with respect to this particular piece of legislation and the way the government will attempt to implement the legislation. I think the previous speaker's comments really are a manifestation of the very deep concern that I have heard throughout the province on this particular bill.

I think I'd like to go back and talk about the area of process. We will remember that this bill was introduced on June 4 at approximately 3:30 in the afternoon, and 90 minutes afterwards the government House leader, without any notice to the opposition parties, tabled new rules of procedure in this Legislature. The impact of those new rules of procedure did nothing less than limit debate on pieces of legislation.

I've drawn the conclusion that the new rules, tabled without any notice, were nothing less than the grease that will get Bill 40 through the Legislature. It will get the bill into law and through the Legislature without members of this Legislature having the opportunity to express their views on the bill, their concerns, and their constituents' opinions as to how Bill 40 may affect their particular ridings. For a government to do that on a bill, the implications and ramifications of which are so severe, I believe, is irresponsible in the extreme.

We saw the result of those new rules as we went through the public hearing process. It was without question that there were many groups and associations that wished to speak on this bill. In fact, in our committee we had approximately 1,100 or 1,200 requests from groups and associations that wanted to come before the committee to speak about their concerns and their opinions on Bill 40 and what it meant to them. But with the new rules and with the dictated time allocation motion by the government, we were only able to hear something in the area of 220 groups. It is clear that the committee heard less than 25% of the groups that wished to be heard on this bill.

We also know that those groups represented hundreds of thousands of Ontario citizens, represented the opinions, the thoughts and the hopes of hundreds of thousands of Ontario citizens. To this day, this committee and this Legislature will not know what those concerns were, and they will not know what they were because of, firstly, the new rules of procedure as laid down by the government which limited debate and, secondly, the time allocation motion which stifled the committee in its public hearing process. So I do have a very deep concern over the process that was used by the government in greasing through this legislation to become law.

There is another aspect to the process which I have found particularly distasteful as used by the government. We will remember that this bill had as its seed what was called the Burkett committee. The Burkett committee was made up of basically two sides: management and labour. That's how the government decided to proceed with this bill, with this area, with these changes: to pick sides; to pick a management side, to pick a labour side. I believe that was a fatal error from the very beginning, because if we were going to deal with changes to the Labour Relations Act, the last thing you wanted to do was to pick sides. What you wanted to do was have a united team, but the government decided there would be a management side and a labour side.

I say that every action taken by the government since that first day has been to broaden the distance between labour and management, to build the distance to a point in time where both labour and management are doing and saying things that I believe will take years to heal. I believe wounds have been created and I lay that responsibility at the foot of the Premier of this province, because the Premier of this province could at the very outset have said: "No, this is not the way in which you deal with changes to the Labour Relations Act of Ontario. You deal with it in a cooperative, consultative, consensual manner. You don't build teams and then seek to build the distance between those teams."

We heard in the previous speaker's statements how the big business community has somehow mounted a campaign designed to thwart Bill 40. I must say that I'm concerned about that. The NDP government, the NDP members, whenever there was a concern brought forward on Bill 40, have from day one consistently responded by saying, "Well, that's another hysterical business response to Bill 40." It didn't matter what the concern was, it didn't matter who made the concern, it didn't matter how the concern was voiced; the response by the NDP government members was always to say, "Well, this is another example of a hysterical business response."

1550

What were some of those responses that the NDP government members characterize as hysterical? One was by the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies. They were concerned about Bill 40. They were concerned that the provisions within Bill 40 would in many ways stop them from doing what is their function under another piece of legislation, which is to act in the best interests of children. The response by the NDP government members was, "Another hysterical business response."

What about when we heard from school boards which had a concern about Bill 40 and how it would impact on school bus operators? We know that in many communities in this province the only way in which children get to school is by the school bus. Under Bill 40, if there is a strike of school bus operators, then there is no way the children can get to school. In essence, the system is closed down. What was the response by the government members on the committee? "Another hysterical business response."

There were other concerns that were brought forward, concerns from researchers in universities about how Bill 40 would affect them in their work. We heard concerns from municipalities, from gas utilities, from hydro utilities; people who were concerned about what the impact of this bill would be on their being able to carry out their functions.

The Attorney General of the province of Ontario seeks to ridicule the concerns brought forward. I only hoped that the Attorney General would have had the opportunity to come before the committee to listen to some of the concerns brought forward by children's aid societies, by school boards, by municipalities, by hydro utilities and gas utilities and had heard and understood what it was they were saying. They were saying that Bill 40 will have an impact on the way in which they are able to provide services to the people of this province.

For the government members to turn their backs on those types of concerns, for the government members to somehow characterize this as some hysterical approach and response to Bill 40 is, I believe, irresponsible in the extreme.

I fear for many people in this province once this bill is going to be law. I fear the impact this bill is going to have in our municipalities and on our abilities as citizens of this province; for instance, if a furnace needs repair during a work stoppage, whether it will be possible for that to be done. I fear for the impact this bill will have on children who have to be taken in through the children's aid society: intake, assessment, visitation.

The Attorney General of the province seeks only to ridicule these types of concerns. I believe that isn't becoming. I believe the Attorney General should do more than just ridicule and interject. I hope the Attorney General of the province would have listened to some of those concerns.

This is a bill which is not just about whether one is in favour or is opposed to unionization. That is not what this bill is about. This is a bill which, in my opinion, flies in the face of some of the concerns that we have raised and that people have raised in our committee. People's concerns throughout this province have been brought forward.

The government would want everyone to believe that in the event you vote against this bill, it means you vote against workers; if you vote in favour of this bill, you vote in favour of workers. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. This bill -- and I have said it time and time again -- takes away from the rights of workers to decide how their workplace is to be governed.

We, as a party, brought forward amendments. We brought forward amendments seeking to give to workers of this province a right to choose as to how their workplace is to be governed. We brought forward an amendment that said that in the event there is an organizing drive, it is important for the workers of that workplace to be informed; to be informed that an organizing drive is taking place; that when that takes place, when that notice is being given, any communication made to a worker in a workplace during an organizing drive must take place in the presence of a member from the labour relations board.

Why is that? The reason is that we heard in committee that there were instances of intimidation, from employer and from organizing union. What we feel is important is that if an organizing drive is taking place, the workers of this province should have full protection against intimidation and coercion from whatever source; that workers of this province should have the right, firstly, to be notified of an organizing drive taking place and, secondly, to be told what their rights are under the Labour Relations Act of Ontario. We brought forward those amendments, which would seek, firstly, to enhance the rights of workers of this province and, secondly, to protect the workers of this province.

What happened when we brought forward those amendments? The government members, the NDP members on the committee voted against. When those amendments were tabled in this chamber just last week, what did the NDP government do to those amendments, which informed workers of their rights, which made certain that they were protected against intimidation and coercion? They voted against. The NDP members will have to justify how they can possibly vote against amendments which seek to protect workers in an organizing campaign.

The issue is not whether one is in favour or opposed to unionization. The issue for me is, when there is an organizing drive, that the workers of this province are protected and are able to cast a vote, yes or no, in a free, secret and democratic way. When we brought forward amendments which would seek to give to workers that right, seek to give to workers the right to secretly decide in a free, democratic way, where majority rules as to how they wish their workplace to be governed, the NDP government voted against.

I have had great concerns with the bill. I have had concerns with not only the substance of the bill -- and I've just touched on one aspect of that -- but also with the process that the bill has used. I believe that with respect to the process the government has undertaken, it has caused damage, it has caused wounds, it has caused rifts in our society at a time when management and labour should be working together, when they should be meeting the demands of competition, not from competition around the corner but rather from competition over the horizon.

1600

What has the NDP government done? They have locked in battle labour and management in a committee room at Queen's Park, at a time when they should have been working together to send out a message that this is a province people can invest in, where a person with an existing business here can look to expand in this province, where new jobs can be created, where there can be a security that the existing jobs will be here tomorrow.

I believe the process the government has used with respect to this bill has been destructive. It has not sent out a positive message; it has sent out a negative message. The previous speaker enhanced that message. He believes, in his comments, that there is some sort of war that is going on between labour and management. The fact of the matter is, the only war that is going on is one that has been created by Bob Rae. That's the only war, because Bob Rae sought to create teams, to create sides in labour relations.

What has the business community asked for over a year? Have they said there should be no change to labour relations in this province? The answer is -- let's get this out, because I know there are many people who are watching on their televisions -- that the business community has never said there should be no change to labour relations in this province. They have said: "If there is to be change, let's do so in a tripartite committee. Let's do so working together. Let's do so with representatives of business, management, labour and government sitting down across from each other at one table, discussing the issues that have to be addressed and how they can be addressed." Is that some sort of hysterical approach to labour relations change? I think not.

I believe that is the way in which this government should have proceeded, but the government chose to take the position of confrontation. They chose to work away from consensus. They chose to work in teams, saying and doing things that will cause wounds in this province that will take years to heal.

Bill 40 substantively takes away the rights of workers in this province. It does nothing for women workers in this province or for immigrant workers in this province. It is clear. Notwithstanding any of the press releases the government seeks to foist on people, we heard in the committee that this bill does not do it. It takes away from the rights of workers to freely and democratically choose how their workplace is to be governed.

The government has instituted this bill, which will soon be law, in a way that is confrontational. They have turned their backs on the many people in this province who have serious concerns and reservations about the bill. They have turned their backs on the many groups and associations that want to say:

"Let's sit down and deal with it in a consultative way. Let's deal with the issues that have to be addressed, let's deal with the way in which they have to be addressed and let's arrive at a solution in a consensual manner, as a team, dealing with the realities of competition today, dealing with the reality that we want to make certain this is a province that sends out a message that you can invest here, that you can create new jobs here and that the jobs today will be there tomorrow."

This government substantively and procedurally has turned its back on those who have those types of concerns.

The legacy of this bill, I fear, will be a lack of investment, will be a loss of jobs. It is a legacy this government is going to have to live with. It is a bill which takes away from the rights of workers. It is a bill which does not stand in the best interests of the workers of this province. It is a bill which I and my party will be voting against.

We can only hope, in these dying hours before the final vote is taken, that the government will somehow come to grips with the realities people have been expressing. This is a bill which should be withdrawn, reworked, redone, relooked, with people working together, as opposed to the way Bob Rae wants it, and that is confrontation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Further debate on Mr Harris's motion?

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on the motion as tabled by my leader, the member for Nipissing, to withdraw Bill 40, amendments to the Labour Relations Act, and to bring to the attention of this NDP government today in the House many of the concerns of my constituents and many of the concerns of organizations that I have had the opportunity to meet with as part of the consultation process and also that I work with in my community.

They are trying to express, through us on this side of the House, some of the concerns with respect to how this legislation will adversely impact their lives and how their very real concerns about the future economic prosperity of our province, the future climate for business investment and the future growth and development of jobs are all legitimate concerns which they feel this government is not listening to, as embodied in its preoccupation with forcing through this legislation.

I believe it is fair to say that seldom have we seen such a piece of legislation endure so much confrontation from all sides. That should be a clear signal to this government that the process by which it's proceeding with this legislation and the content of this legislation are highly suspect.

It's a very controversial bill, and its opponents do not, as the Premier and the Minister of Labour would have us all believe, fit into nice, neat packages of being all just special-interest groups, corporate welfare bums -- an offensive phrase created by their federal party leader some years ago. They don't fit into that category because, in fact, the opposition to this legislation comes from housewives, unemployed workers, employers, small business people, social service agencies, from a wide cross-section of Ontarians who have taken the time to understand this bill in order to be able to respond to it in an intelligent fashion. Frankly, what they're saying is that it's inappropriate in this economy, it's unnecessary in this modern Ontario, and it will not achieve what the government suggests it will achieve.

Much has been said about the so-called consultation process. Those of us who work intimately with committee clerks in this Legislature know the amount of political tampering that goes on with arranging for a whole series of speakers to appear before a committee, the horse-trading that went on to make sure that for every unknown speaker, there must be a pro-union speaker there. They line them all up, and unions divide themselves to make sure they have three, four or five different representatives, all so that the government can say: "See? The majority of the people came forward and supported the proposals in this legislation."

That is not consultation; that's consensus engineering, and it's political tampering of the worst order. So the government wants to defend this legislation? Fine. But don't try to suggest that you consulted widely and there's wide acceptance. The truth is that instead of achieving a consensus on labour relations in this province, this government has succeeded in driving a wedge between business and labour. At the most crucial time in our modern history, the last thing that business and labour need in this province is to have a wedge driven between them and to have a process of confrontation developed around legislation promoted by any government.

According to the report by the Ontario and Burlington chambers of commerce, the role of a government in an industrial economy is to be the least intrusive possible while creating an environment in which economic growth and development can be sustained. Central to this point is the spirit of cooperation between the government and the private sector. These are the things that Bob Rae said he stood for before the election, and we're quite disturbed and upset that now that he's the Premier he seems to have forgotten those very words that helped get him elected.

1610

The competitive market economy is fundamental to our economic renewal, and frankly, as the Chairman of the estimates committee, I've been sitting with ministers of this government, listening to them state that their prospects for delivery of services are tied to economic renewal. I say to those ministers, you can't justify your lack of funds and your commitment to assist social services, health and other requirements of Ontario residents and tie that to economic renewal, and then, when there's clear evidence that this legislation does not do that, simply flip your argument out of convenience and pretend those arguments don't exist. There's a cruel hypocrisy in an approach where a government says its commitment to social services, to the citizens of this province, is tied to economic renewal and then proceeds with this kind of legislation.

I've mentioned that comprehensive social service programs in the public sector have traditionally not understood the importance of ensuring that we have a strong business environment in which to create the wealth in order to pay for those services. This is not an Ontario experiment; this is a global understanding of how our economies work.

Europe is filled with socialist governments on the brink of collapse, who've had to get back to basics and fundamentals about economies to realize that you can't tax the dwindling wealth of a nation. Yet this government is prepared to proceed in the midst of all the clear evidence and so is prepared to put at risk many of the things we've built and come to appreciate in this province. They're prepared to put those things at risk for their own ideological purposes and in order to say thank you to labour bosses who have assisted them through very difficult elections over the last 25 or 30 years.

There's no question there's a big political marker out there, but the bigger political marker is to our children. If we can't as politicians understand and agree that what we owe them is their future prosperity, not putting today's programs at risk so they're in place for tomorrow, then we have failed our most important commitment as legislators.

This government seems bound and determined to follow on its ideological path with this kind of legislation, which is clearly why the motion before the House today is most appropriate and worthy of support by all members.

The public is getting quite an insight into the real nature of a socialist government and they're starting to see some of these contradictions in its philosophy of social democracy. Of course, I'm concerned by the most important cornerstone of betrayal in this Bill 40 legislation: the removal of any right for a worker to have a secret ballot.

I was personally offended by the defence by one of the socialist members of the House who said that, "Having a secret ballot is a rather narrow view of democracy." I hope the citizens of Ontario realize what an inconvenience the ballot box is to a socialist government. We're getting quite an insight as to the way this government is now operating, and it is embodied in its approach to Bill 40. They are going to have to get a rude awakening, like all political parties do, with the most important wake-up call a politician can get: the ballot box.

Certainly the Tories learned about the lack of consultation when they faced voters on separate school funding. Recently the Liberals learned the consequences of taxation policies run amok in the last election, and certainly the NDP are going to have to learn what the consequences are for not protecting jobs, protecting our economy and, therefore, protecting our future prosperity. They're going to learn that in less than two and a half years at the ballot box.

I indicated I wanted to say a few words about some of my constituents.

Bill Lincoln, the president of Ball Packaging in my riding, said: "These changes would increase the cost and risk of doing business in Ontario by further polarizing labour and management. Ontario would become the less favoured place to invest."

Robert Charbonneau, the president of Medallion Plastics in Burlington, said to the Premier: "Your government must understand the enormous competitive disadvantages already confronting Ontario manufacturers, including a more onerous tax regime than our US competitors, rising energy costs, costly social programs. If the NDP government implements these reforms, our capacity to remain competitive could be obliterated."

Mr C.D. Allen in Burlington writes about the confrontational nature of this government:

"The competitive climate in which Ontario businesses must operate today requires a lessening of the adversarial relationship between labour and management and an enhancement of the cooperative spirit found in truly successful companies. It is quite clear that if the proposed changes are adopted, their ultimate effect will be to enhance the adversarial relationship between labour and management and lessening that cooperative spirit."

John Rutledge, an accountant from Burlington, states in a letter, "The fiscal demands now placed on Ontario businesses are oppressive, and to enact these new proposals would be to strangle the economic confidence and the climate of this great province."

Mr Hans Vander Stoep, the executive director of the Canadian Christian Business Federation, states, "There is very little point in talking about organizing labour if there is no work."

The unemployment rate has been rising steadily. One in 10 Ontario citizens is now receiving social assistance. Ontario's public debt has risen by almost 50%, to a projected $52 billion for the current fiscal year. While the province's credit rating has been cut twice, under Bill 40, workers will effectively have their democratic right to say no to union membership taken away from them. They won't even have the choice to assist in their own economic prosperity and their own future employment. This will be taken away from them.

According to Catherine Swift of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, "You'll have more protection in this province buying a vacuum cleaner than as a worker joining a union and having a choice."

An interesting point is raised by Linda Ciglen and Catherine Swift in their submission on Bill 40, which I had the pleasure of reading, when they say that:

"If unions had a track record of being workplace partners dedicated to improving productivity and increasing cooperation, then businesses would be falling all over themselves to have more unions in their workplaces and individual workers would be rushing to embrace them. If unions had an attractive package to offer employees, unions would not require all of the imbalanced legislative means embodied in this labour legislation before us to extend their presence in the workplace."

According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, "Unions too often leave a trail of devastation in their wake, with worsened productivity, workplace problems, failing competitiveness, labour strife and disheartened workers."

Not only business leaders and workers would be affected; there are many other organizations. Briefly, I want to indicate that the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies has stated that its mandate under the Child and Family Services Act, "To ensure the protection of children and the prevention of circumstances which would require their protection," could be put at risk by the implementation of this legislation.

"While the majority of workers, in this province, for children's aid societies are unionized, the truth and the fact of the matter is that by the government's refusal to allow contracting out and by their requiring all supervisory officers to be a part of the collective bargaining unit, we will not be able to provide those services for high-risk children. These are children who are being sexually assaulted, who have to become wards of the children's aid society. We will not be able to offer them the protection, under law, that they are due."

This government, in a very cavalier fashion, has decided that it is not prepared to make the necessary amendments in order to ensure that those vulnerable children are protected.

I could go on further to talk about vulnerable workers, to go on about some additional concerns about the children's aid societies, but I would go on to further suggest to you that this issue will also have an adverse effect on day care centres, as this government proceeds with its plans to provide universal day care with unionized universal day care in Ontario.

There was sufficient evidence in the hearings on Bill 40 to expose the true agenda, and the non-profit boards, many of which have parents with children in their centres -- those children would be used as bargaining chips and the parents would be intimidated by the process of bargaining.

1620

That, to the members opposite who are snickering, came out in an actual presentation. The rationale from the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care indicated very clearly that if parents are not prepared to listen to the concerns of the workers, then they have to deal with the fallout for thousands of children in this province being sent home with no day care program. Imagine the havoc that will create, predominantly for the women workers in this province who rely on day care.

This legislation unquestionably will cost jobs in this province. It will send a bad message to business investment and to that climate.

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): No, you're doing that.

Mr Jackson: I don't have to be the only one. The member indicates I'm doing that. I've quoted extensively from people, from union members, from individuals all across this province who've expressed concern about this legislation. I've only been able, through the courtesy of our party leader through his motion today, to present those concerns in the House.

I urge the NDP to consider new jobs for unemployed workers as their first priority and payoffs to their labour boss friends as their second priority. Judging by the well-noted weak response of the Liberal leader, Lyn McLeod, I urge the Liberals to try and develop some backbone on this legislation and join us in calling for its repeal. The economy can no longer afford political parties and their policies that try to be all things to all people.

My party and my leader, Mike Harris, have made a very clear and decisive decision on this legislation, as evidenced by today's motion in the House. Our first priority for our party is for there to be jobs, economic prosperity and a commitment to Ontario's future prosperity.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): It is a great pleasure to participate in the debate today because I want to try and deal with some of the rhetoric that we have heard today regarding the impact of Bill 40.

First of all, we've heard that Bill 40 is going to kill jobs and destroy investment in Ontario. We've heard a lot about what goes on in workplaces, how this legislation is going to give unions an unfair advantage in the workplace and how that's going to undermine productivity and successful companies. But from my experience of going around to the companies in my riding and the factories, what I find out is that it's not legislation that makes a company productive or not and motivates a workforce. It's good management. It's participation by the employees, their ability to participate in decision-making, and a receptive management that is open to ideas and participation of the employees.

Let me say about participation that usually it's about how to make the company more competitive and how to save the company money. That is the key: A well-trained, motivated workforce and a company providing a good product or service are the keys to success in this province and in any other jurisdiction.

This legislation isn't going to affect that. This legislation is not going to change that. Some of the rhetoric we've heard is that this is going to kill jobs and investment. That's simply not the case. The only thing that's going to kill jobs is the rhetoric we've been hearing from the opposition to this legislation. I want to be quite clear here that I don't believe all the people opposed to this have been using the harsh rhetoric. I've had some people in who felt they had very legitimate concerns and who, once they had some explanation, felt a little more at ease about the legislation.

Again, I want to talk about the reality. We've heard comments today about how unions are disruptive of the workplace, how they don't do things that are productive towards the economy. I want to cite a couple of examples, first of all, the members of CAW Local 636 who work at the Kelsey-Hayes foundry in Woodstock. That plant has been the recipient of Chrysler's quality award for seven years in a row. That is one of only 14 plants in the entire world that have achieved that. That's why Ontario is a good place to invest. That's how unionized workplaces can be productive and can help and contribute to this economy and to the success of Kelsey-Hayes.

I also want to talk about what I feel is a very innovative approach undertaken by a union that I formerly belonged to, thr United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1977. Local 1977 negotiated an education fund with Zehrs Markets several years ago. It started out at one cent an hour, and as many unions do, they have these education funds. Some use them for training of union members and their own development.

UFCW took a rather unique approach and what it did is that it committed that money to an education centre and through a combination of funds -- the company contributes to that and the accessing of federal and provincial funds for training -- we now have the Clifford Evans Training Centre just outside of Cambridge.

What is really unique about this centre is what occurs. For those who are familiar with the grocery industry, many people get into areas and they don't see a future. So if you're a grocery clerk and the company has a lot of young produce managers, you don't see much a future for you. What you can do is apply, go to the training centre, receive training to be maybe a meat cutter and then come back in and go back working as a produce clerk. If you have the seniority and a job opening comes up for a meat cutter, you can apply for that and you're considered qualified for that job.

I want to tell you what the results of that have been. First of all, they increase employee morale and the workers' morale because they know that they're not in a deadend job, that they have opportunities for movement.

Not only are they working on those specifics, the education centre has also been working on providing short-term programs for assistant managers about marketing and motivating employees, all the other key, essential elements.

This is a very, very innovative approach, but I want to tell you that this education centre never would have come about if it wasn't for the leadership of the union and of Local 1977. So when we hear the rhetoric here that unions are disruptive and they're not interested in the outcome or the success of their companies, I think we just have to simply dismiss that.

As we know, not every corporate executive is out there to do in his employees. Many of them have the best interests of the employees. If we're going to be successful, it's going to take partnership, but employees and labour people have to have a voice. Some feel they have to have that within a union.

I still get people coming into my office, even in the last two years, as much as the opposition wants to say that no one's interested in the union, who have concerns in their workplace, who are not unionized and who are seriously considering having a union come in and organize. So not all workplace situations are as ideal as some people may want to think. They've certainly come a long way; there's still a process to go. This is about the ability of people to have the right to join a union, for those people who have been excluded.

I want to summarize again by saying that there are very innovative things that unions are doing out there. They are producing good, quality work. The employees are just as productive. There are even surveys to indicate employee shops are more productive than non-employee shops in terms of manufacturing. I do not see how this legislation is going to kill jobs and investment. It ultimately comes down to how a specific workplace operates, cooperation between the employees, whether they're unionized or non-unionized, and the management.

This legislation is to give people rights, to take us forward and take this province into the next century. Combined with some of the other initiatives we're doing in terms of the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board and some of the other cooperative ventures that this government is trying to provide leadership for, both in the public and private sector, Ontario's economy in the long run is going to be far stronger. I encourage everyone to vote against this motion which is strictly rhetoric and let's look at the real facts.

1630

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): It's a pleasure to participate in this debate briefly. I'd like to inquire whether or not the member for Oxford has information that's not available to the rest of the members of the House. He said this will not lose jobs, that he's confident about that. I want to ask the member for Oxford, do you have an independent study that was done for you privately and not for the rest of the government? Because we're told there was no independent study done, and you're just relying on a good guess that this will have no impact whatsoever on the job situation in this province.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): That's not for him to prove.

Mr Callahan: No, but he said that he believes, and strongly believes, that there will be no job loss.

Mr Mammoliti: They're guessing. You're guessing. You prove it.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for Brampton South has the floor.

Mr Callahan: He obviously has to have some independent information, so I'd like to know if the member for Oxford has done a private study. If it's worthwhile, we'd like to take a look at it, because nobody else in the government has done it. A couple of other members over there say, "He doesn't have to prove it." Yes, you do. You're the government. You're the people who are introducing this legislation, saying, "Don't worry about it, Ontario, the job situation will not get any worse."

The fact is that there are 581,000 people out of work, and that's when this note was printed; it's probably higher than that now. The fact is that there were 265,000 more unemployed since September 1990, and that since September 1990, 242 plants have closed. Between the start of this January and the end of May, another 63 facilities shut their doors.

British Columbia, which also has a socialist government, did something similar to what you're doing. But if you followed the news reports of it, British Columbia was able to come to terms with the business community because they had hearings, meaningful hearings, not the 11 orchestrated hearings that the Minister of Labour tried to jam down the public's throat. So that was your first mistake.

Two mistakes: The first mistake was that there is no independent study to determine what impact this will have on the province of Ontario; the second mistake was they just cut off total communication with the other parties.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Order. The member for Brampton South has the floor. Please respect that.

Mr Callahan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What they failed to do was to maintain that balance, that very important balance between labour and business. Let's face it: You can talk about unionization and making it easy to be unionized and so on, but if there are no jobs, then there are no unions. It's like love and marriage: They go together like a horse and carriage; you know, that old song.

The last time I spoke in this House, I asked the Minister of Labour if he would undertake to take this legislation back or revisit it at some stage down the line if it were proven after a year or so, or six months, that job loss became even greater than the 581,000 people out of work already. If that were the case, then I could respect his judgement; at least the man would be looking after the people of Ontario in a sensitive way. He wouldn't give me that undertaking. Some people may say that it was naïve to ask the minister for that, because the minister is so committed to the unionization of the totality of Ontario that he can't see beyond his own nose.

What we have, number one, is a government that doesn't listen. The orchestrated hearings were nothing near what they were in British Columbia. Perhaps that's the reason the former chairman of Hydro left here to go to British Columbia. Maybe he found that he couldn't communicate with this government because it didn't want to listen to anything and decided it was better to go to British Columbia, where perhaps the atmosphere was a little clearer.

I might also add that I made a pitch for the farmers on the last occasion. I really find it passing strange that the Minister of Labour still wishes to retain within the act the ability, by regulation, to literally unionize the farmers. He promises them: "Well, Mr Farmer, don't worry about it. We're going to take that portion out that allows us by regulation to look after your union needs, and we're going to enact a separate piece of legislation."

If he's saying what he really means, then I suggest, why would he not bring in at least a white paper on that, let us see it, let the farmers see it? Why would he not wait and respond to the meetings that the farm community had? He doesn't want to do that, because what he's got right now over in that legislation is the most draconian section dealing with farmers. Because a regulation, as we here in the House know, is simply cabinet saying: "Fiat. Let it be done." It never gets to the floor of the Legislature; nobody ever gets to debate it. It's kind of like the casinos, that when Madam Churley of the casino, and now sports lotteries and bookie joints, decides she wants to bring that forth, it's done by regulation. The people of this province surely understand that casinos were brought in by the cabinet without any consultation or any debate on the floor of this House. And the farmers of this province should understand that's exactly the power the minister will have if this bill is passed.

In fact, the farmers have been shafted. They're going to find that there may very well be no legislation brought in. They'll simply be ruled by edict, and that's a very unfair situation for the farmers, particularly when one recognizes that the commitment of the New Democratic Party, which is now the government, to farmers and farm land has been shattered.

Look at the Minister of the Environment: she looks at farm land as being a place to put garbage. And yet, in the days when they were in opposition, farm land was sacrosanct. No one dared to touch farm land. They were against farm land being developed, and now that's the Minister of the Environment's alternative to the 3Rs: Just plunk it into some rich farm land. I can assure you that every one of those sites being looked at by the Minister of the Environment is class A farm land.

I guess one of the things I learned when I first came down here in 1985 was that every piece of legislation the present government -- at that time the opposition -- every time it tried to amend a bill, speak to a bill or lobby against a bill, it was to increase the span of unionization. One would say, why is that? There's nothing wrong with unions: Unions are important to a fair balance between labour and business. But why were they always so directed towards making sure they could increase and enhance union activities?

I have to say this: We all know that by check-off, by resolution of the unions, they can in fact direct the funds, the check-off moneys that are taken, without any consideration by the workers themselves, from their pay -- they're required to pay it -- and it's paid to the New Democratic Party.

I suggested on one occasion -- and I still think it's true, although we have not had a legal opinion or any legal advice on it -- that section 41 of the Legislative Assembly Act, which reads as follows:

"No member of the assembly shall knowingly accept or receive, either directly or indirectly," and I underline that, "any fee, compensation or reward for or in respect of the drafting, advising upon, revising, promoting or opposing any bill, resolution, matter or thing submitted or intended to be submitted to the assembly or a committee thereof."

They are doing it directly or indirectly, I suggest, because in fact the net result of this will be mass unionization -- if there are any jobs left to unionize -- and in fact more money into the coffers of the NDP for purposes of a war chest in fighting the next election.

I suggest to you that they are in fact in contravention of section 41 of the Legislative Assembly Act. The Legislative Assembly Act, if I'm correct, provides for the whole bunch of them to be prosecuted. It also provides for them to lose their seats. If anyone out there in the business world is listening, I suggest you go out and get an independent legal opinion as to whether or not section 41 does constitute a mandate that cannot be breached by the present government. If that's the case, then Bill 40 should never have been passed, and they're simply, as it were, feathering their nests.

I only have one further item, because there are other members who wish to speak: It's with the Ontario Nurses' Association. I find it really remarkable that the nurses of this province, who are the care givers and the people who are there when you need them when you're ill, who work hard, who are devoted to their profession, and wanted not to be lumped into the particular union suggested by the government but wanted to be independent, that they couldn't have it, because the Ontario Federation of Labour, I think it was, indicated it didn't want it.

Who's running this government? Who runs that place over there? Is it Bob White? Is it the Gord Wilsons? Is it the union executive? Who runs the place? I know while the Premier is away it will probably be run by Bob White, or perhaps Frances Lankin, but in any event, one has to wonder about that.

1640

The nurses, who contacted my office and I'm sure contacted the offices of many of the members of the Legislature, made what I thought was a very reasonable request. They're being denied that. They're being denied it simply because the OFL decided it didn't want them to have it.

I wonder if that really makes one comfortable and safe, as a person in this province, if in fact the policies that are made over there can be applied or not applied depending on the whim or the will of Bob White and the Gord Wilsons of the world and so on. I always thought democracy meant that the people who are elected made those decisions, but I guess somehow that's not the case any more.

Having just made a few of those observations, I believe that the motion being brought today is certainly one that deserves support. When one looks at, finally, the one telling clause of true democracy is a secret ballot. It's gone. That seems to me to be a very strange thing for a so-called New Democratic Party that, in today's newspaper, says it is related to Clinton, to the Democrats in the United States. I doubt very much that you'd find the Democratic Party in the United States agreeing that there should not be a secret ballot, that when you went in to vote, you had to raise your hand or whatever. That's what you people are doing.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Do you think the Americans would tolerate socialism?

Mr Callahan: I doubt that. That's certainly questionable, because I think the Americans got rid of socialism in eastern Europe. They reduced it back to the capital system. But somehow the message has not quite got to Queen's Park over that. They still think that what was going on in eastern Europe is going on.

Having said that, I would like to say that this opposition day motion is in order and should be supported. I'm looking forward to it being supported by some of those independent members in the government; I'm sure we will see some of them stand up and vote against this. I can't believe that members of the New Democratic Party would possibly --

Mr Mahoney: Fairminded.

Mr Callahan: That's right, fairminded people. They'll be voting with us, I think. Your constituents will be very pleased when you do that. If you don't do it, what's going to happen is that you'll stay alive until 1995, and in 1995 you'll be looking for another place to rest your hat, a comfortable job, no heavy lifting, out of the rain. But you'll be right back into heavy lifting and out in the rain.

I want to thank you, Mr Chair, for having had an opportunity to put some comments on the record on this bill. It's called a labour bill. I suggest to you, Mr Chair, as I said before, that if there are no jobs, there can't be any unions, so in fact it's an anti-labour bill.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): This subject is a large one, and I wish I had considerably more time to address the many issues that have been raised by my constituents and by our critic for Labour. However, I would like to make a number of comments on this occasion.

First of all, the public hearings on Bill 40 were a sham. On September 3, the public hearings on Bill 40 ended. Over the course of five weeks, the committee heard from 240 delegations, but a larger number of Ontarians did not have a voice, as over 1,200 people applied to make a presentation. The NDP members of the committee repeatedly defeated opposition motions that would have extended the number of weeks of public hearings.

Submission after submission warned the government that changes to the Labour Relations Act would have a negative impact on investment and job creation. The ban on the use of replacement workers will threaten the future viability of sectors from food processing to auto parts manufacturing to newspapers.

Our PC Labour critic, Elizabeth Witmer, addressed the concerns expressed during the summer public hearings by tabling 94 amendments to the bill. The government only allowed time to debate on the first 32 amendments and defeated the rest without comment. The Liberals, on the other hand, only tabled 15 amendments during the committee deliberations and surprisingly failed to introduce a single amendment regarding the use of replacement workers.

There's no doubt what the NDP agenda is. It is clear that the Bob Rae government is committed to an agenda of expanding union power in the province. Many of the proposals are directed at facilitating unionization of the retail and service sectors. The government's own documentation reveals that 19.1% of the employees in the private sector are unionized. Trade union density in the retail sector is 10.1%, while in the financial service sector, it is only 1.5%. Organized labour has been frustrated in its attempt to unionize Ontario's expanded service sector. The NDP is going to ensure that its union friends get in. After all, they will receive increased revenues for the NDP via the union checkoff.

I like the quote from James Noonan of the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto, who said: "Personally, I sort of take it as a barometer of what the intentions of the government are and whether its purported objective in this legislation is bona fide. Is this labour reform or nothing more than a political payoff to its union constituency?" I think the answer to that is self-evident.

Unlike the Liberal Party, the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party under Michael Harris is more opposed to this legislation than anything. We believe there will never be a right time for this one-sided legislation, the way the Liberals are talking about it. Our motto is, "Stay Alive Till '95." A Harris government will repeal this legislation and restore the balance between the interests of labour and management in Ontario.

Our party also has another proposal, and that is to democratize the unions. On November 7, 1991, our Labour critic introduced a private member's bill, Bill 152, calling for a secret ballot vote in all cases for certification, ratification of a collective agreement and a decision to strike. Mr Rae should note that BC and Alberta have a necessity for a vote. It works for Michael Harcourt. Why can't it work for Mr Rae?

Another concern I have with this legislation is the third-party picketing. People do not really realize that there is the right for another person to organize, solicit and picket, to go on another person's property. Anyone can be lined up to represent a union. Section 11.1 says, "Employees and persons acting on behalf of a trade union have the right to be present on premises...." That means you don't even have to be a union member on strike. They can come along and get someone else to do the picketing for them.

This whole bill offends the Trespass to Property Act. For the first time in any jurisdiction in Canada, the rights of third-party property owners will be subject to the union's right to organize and picket. Such a revolutionary departure from the present state of the law is an unjustified intrusion on what has been considered a fundamental right. Bill 40 violates the rights of property owners and innocent customers. Businesses that share retail space but are not party to the labour dispute will have their businesses negatively affected. There is no definition of permissible picketing behaviour. The cabinet submission refused to include peaceful picketing.

This government doesn't understand what replacement workers can do and are within the workplace. This proposal will tilt the economic balance of power 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 fill orders to maintain customer goodwill. In essence, a strike will become an economic blockade. Employees cannot cross a picket line to return to work, even if they do not agree with their union representatives. A single parent struggling to raise a family could not return to work. This is a significant intrusion into employee freedoms.

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 it has fewer people and a smaller economy. Ontario, on the other hand, has had fewer strikes, due to a balance between the employees' rights to go on strike and the employer's right to continue operation during a strike.

I will vote against this bill, I will fight this bill and I will fight the New Democrats as long as this is a bill and a law in the province of Ontario. It stinks and they stink too.

1650

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The honourable government whip and member for Niagara South.

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister without Portfolio): It is my pleasure to rise today in response to the opposition day motion put forth by the leader of the third party. I am pleased to have this opportunity to comment on the contents of the motion and to state that I could not disagree more strongly with the position taken by the leader and the members of the Progressive Conservative Party.

I am very proud of this legislation and all that it stands for and all that it will mean to working men and women here in Ontario. Our party took office with a mandate for change and the stated intention to promote fairness and equity for all people in Ontario. Bill 40 is only one piece of that fairness agenda, which commits government to improving social justice and addressing the unfairness to people here in Ontario. Our commitment to fairness stretches beyond the workplace. It touches all aspects of people's lives, providing Ontarians with an opportunity to share in the wealth and potential that is all ours here in this great province.

Our government implemented amendments to the Support and Custody Orders Enforcement Act. We implemented reform to the family support act and other initiatives, all of which help individuals become financially independent and are key to the fight to end poverty for men, women and children.

The leader of the third party and the opposition Liberals attempt to paint Bill 40 as the great payback to the union bosses of this province. By their words and their actions they demean these duly elected union representatives and they show utter disrespect for labour's contributions here in the province of Ontario.

The member for Nipissing professes to support workers' rights, yet his statements here in the very House and in the media pit one group against the other: union workers against management. That attitude can no longer be accepted here in Ontario if we are to realize our full economic and social potential.

The member for Nipissing yesterday presented every cabinet minister with a brick. He said that those bricks were from businesses destroyed by our government's commitment to Bill 40. I argue that those bricks more or less came from his own wall, the wall that he's building around himself, a wall of mistrust that is dividing workers and employers in this province.

The opposition portrays Bill 40 as an attempt to tip the balance between unions and working people. They feel we're giving too much to the unions. They ignore the true intent of this legislation, which is to give workers input into workplace decisions that affect their livelihoods and those of their families and their children.

The leader's attempt to paint Bill 40 as a threat to jobs and investment only serves to frighten people and drive away potential investment here in the province. With that rhetoric, this can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you repeat a false story often enough, regrettably it's bound to be believed by some people.

I have experienced the workplace cooperation which Bill 40 is intended to create. Just recently in my Port Colborne constituency office I had an opportunity to address the real issues confronting business in a full partnership with a business owner, a labourer and a union representative. This is the kind of cooperation that will be needed if Ontario is to succeed in a competitive global economy. This is the kind of cooperation that Bill 40 will foster.

The leader of the third party pledges to repeal Bill 40 if given the opportunity to form a future future. My question to him is, why? Why would he seek to eliminate fairness? Why would he seek to eliminate equity, which we all agree is essential if Ontario is to compete on the global stage?

In their opposition to Bill 40 the opposition parties attempt to lay Ontario's current economic difficulties at our feet. Not only is that unfair; that is untrue. The difficult times we are experiencing right now in this province were not created by this government, nor are they isolated to just Ontario. One only has to watch the nightly newscasts to see similar and, in some cases, even worse scenarios in the United States, Great Britain and even Japan.

Promoting the economy and creating jobs are priorities of our government. Ontario has a highly skilled and flexible workplace and workforce, which is so important. It has access to major markets and natural resources. It is an attractive place to do business, to invest in.

Labour reform will not change that. It will build on all of these good things by increasing the cooperation and innovation needed to get this province going again.

I am very proud of Bill 40. I'm sure that Joe and Josephine Ontario, listening to this show out there, want Bill 40, and I'm proud to be part of the government that is going to pass it through.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The honourable member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: What scares me is that the former speaker really is proud of Bill 40. If nothing else, there is some sincerity there and that probably worries our party more than anything.

I understand from my time in government how a government, how a cabinet, how a cabinet minister, how someone in a back room perhaps can draft a piece of legislation and they bring it in and they sort of whip it on the men and women in the caucus and give you the orders and the justification for it. I understand that. I saw that happen. I openly admit that.

It's something within our system, frankly, that bothers me as a parliamentarian. I don't think it should happen in my party or the Tory party or this particular government, but it does happen. The fact that there is very little dissent within the government party really gives proof to the fact that that's simply what has happened here.

I was interested in the comments in the shouting that took place where one of the members opposite said that everyone's guessing. That's another thing that bothers the Liberal Party greatly about Bill 40: Clearly, the government is guessing.

Mr Mammoliti: No, I said you're guessing.

Mr Mahoney: We know that the minister has not completed one credible study -- as the member harps over there -- examining the impact of this bill.

In fact, I have a letter -- I don't have it in my possession, but it's upstairs in my office -- from a constituent who wrote a letter to Bob Mackenzie last April and said that he wanted some information on behalf of a client in the United States who wrote and said, "Before I do business with you, I want to know the impact of Bill 40 on our business relationship."

This minister wrote back in June and actually said -- in fairness, since I don't have the letter, I'll paraphrase it -- that he did not know what the impact of Bill 40 would be on that business. This Labour minister admitted that last June.

Mr Hayes: Go get the letter.

Mr Mahoney: I've shown the minister the letter; I don't have to go get it. I can produce it if I need to, but he actually said in writing that he had no idea what the impact of Bill 40 would be on this person's business.

I could understand if some of the members on the back bench over there had to admit that, because they have people snapping at their ankles all over the place and maybe they haven't had time to do the homework to understand the impact. But for the Minister of Labour -- Mr Speaker, can you imagine that, the Minister of Labour, one of your own colleagues? -- to openly admit in a written letter to a resident of this province that he has no idea what the impact of this legislation would be, I find that really irresponsible.

Mr Mammoliti: I want to see it now.

Mr Mahoney: I'll show it to you later, George, if you can stay around. I'll read it to you, just in case you're unable to read it.

One of the things I find interesting too is how I've heard members opposite try to pin the blame for the negative reaction on the opposition. If that wasn't --

1700

Mr Mammoliti: Will you read it slowly?

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Order, please.

Mr Mahoney: I'll give you crayons too if you want that.

If the negative reaction was simply coming from the benches of the opposition, then maybe I could understand it. Are you suggesting that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business is just a bunch of rednecks? Are you suggesting that? Your Premier said, when you people won office, that you were going to be the government of all the people, I say to the Minister of Health.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): Except you.

Mr Mahoney: Except me. I can understand that, I say to the Minister of Housing, and thank God, because I'm not really interested in you people doing anything for me, let me tell you that. But you're supposed to be the government for all the people, so you dismiss the Canadian Federation of Independent Business as a bunch of rednecks. Their concerns don't matter to you.

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): You said that.

Mr Mahoney: No, well, that's how you're acting. You're pretending that all the opposition to Bill 40 only comes from the leader of the third party or members of my caucus. That's absolute nonsense. The opposition, the fear and the concern is coming from the entire community. I wish you'd come and read some of the mail I get. These aren't from rednecks. These aren't from extremists. These aren't from right-wingers. These are from people who work in the labour movement, who work in plants and on factory floors, who are worried that their business -- you can shake your head, but it's true -- that they worked for is going to go out of business, and they're not seeing any indication that you're going to try to help them.

Mr Mammoliti: People like you are guessing.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Mahoney: It's a little bit like the old story: If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Mr Speaker, get them in order.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Mahoney: I can handle him. Don't worry about him. If George doesn't heckle me, I sort of run out of things to say. He helps me when he does that.

I want to read from a document from the Ministry of Labour. Here is what they say. The government's brought in some amendments and announced with great fanfare that these amendments were going to do wonderful things. With the purpose clause, which is a clause that outlines the purpose of this bill, they want to enact a new purpose clause that would reflect the underlying objectives of the act -- now get this -- and ensure that workers can freely organize. Don't they have that right now? I'm puzzled by this.

I remember in the 1960s -- the member for Sudbury East was here a minute ago -- going along with my dad up to Sudbury when the Steelworkers were leading a little minor raid on the Mine, Mill union to take over some of the union dues; they wanted the dough. There was a clear right to freely organize. They didn't need some provincial government to come along with new amendments that gave them the right so that they could freely organize. It's amazing.

Then it says they want to encourage collective bargaining. How many years has collective bargaining been in place? Most of the people on the government benches have made their living one way or another involved in the collective bargaining process in this province and in this country. Why do you need to pass legislation to allow for collective bargaining to take place?

I don't understand it. The people in this province don't understand it. If it ain't broke, George, don't fix it. Leave it alone. That's the trouble. You guys get in there and you've got some debts you owe to Leo Gerard and to Bob White and to Gord Wilson and to some of these folks. Minister, you know that's true. You have these commitments to these people, who we see sitting in your cabinet office with their feet up on the desk giving you orders. We know that's happening.

So you bring in something that's going to allow people to freely organize. What radical legislation. My goodness. It's a good thing you got elected, because before you folks came along, no one could freely organize in the province of Ontario and there was no such thing as collective bargaining.

Then just to point out the absolute ludicrous examples that your own minister gives, he says in the purpose clause he wants to promote harmonious labour relations. I tell you, have you ever seen anything, I ask you, that promotes harmonious labour legislation like Bill 40? Aren't we a happy bunch of campers in Ontario? The business community is just lining up outside Bob Rae's door waving goodbye and handing him a little flower as he gets on the plane to go to Japan.

Why do you think he's going there, by the way? Why do you think he's going to Japan? He's going over there -- it's called damage control -- not because Ed Philip just got back, with respect to Ed, but because the international investment community, like the person I referred to in the letter that Bob Mackenzie wrote back on, particularly in the Pacific Rim, is very concerned.

They want to know, "Why are you doing this?" not because -- trust me -- in Hong Kong and in Japan they don't watch question period. So you can pretend -- at least not this one; they don't watch this one, so they don't think: "Oh, the opposition members are upset. That's why we're afraid to invest in Ontario." They don't care, frankly, what you say or what we say. What they're concerned about is what the international bankers say, what the international investment people say, what the business community says?

They do read the press from time to time and they analyse things and they go, "Why is this socialist government, at a time throughout the world when we see socialism falling, why is this socialist government" -- I recognize that you call yourself "democratic socialists." I understand that. You sort of couch it and you bring in the democratic aspect. How democratic can you possibly be when you refuse to allow -- get this, Mr Speaker -- a secret ballot? This should be just the New Party, not the New Democratic Party. How can the word "democratic" --

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: Margaret, please.

Why wouldn't you allow a secret ballot?

Interjections.

Mr Mahoney: I hear some of the members in the Tory caucus spouting off about how the Liberals only put 15 amendments or something. But let me tell you, who is the one who was speaking in the committee meetings? It was the member for Mississauga North. The member for Mississauga North put an amendment -- very interesting. Somebody over there has got to explain to me why you would vote against this. You know that currently it's 45% to unionize, the vote. These people want to reduce it to 40%. Mr Offer, the critic for our party for the Labour ministry, put an amendment to reduce the percentage requirement down to 30%. He only had one condition: He wanted it to be a democratic secret ballot. Guess what? The government members of the committee voted it down. It is unbelievable.

The people in the labour movement should be saying, "What are you guys, nuts? We had the opposition agreeing to a 30% requirement for accreditation and you voted it down. Why? Don't you trust us to vote in a secret ballot? Don't you trust the men and women on the shop floor who you're trying to get unionized so that you can get them in to check off, so that you can get more money for your party? Don't you trust them? You see, if they decide they don't want to be unionized, shouldn't they have that right instead of this minister saying he wants to ensure that workers can freely organize?"

How about, "Workers can freely not organize?" Do you think that's fair? How about if the workers can say: "Sorry, I don't want to do this. I'm quite happy. We have a good working relationship in our small business. We're quite happy with the operation. He or she treats us fair. He or she pays us good wages. They give us good holidays. They give us good benefits. I have a pension. I don't need to be organized. Do I not have the choice in a secret ballot?"

Those of you who have been involved in the labour movement know that the majority of people involved in the labour movement are good, decent people; no question about that. There is always the possibility, however, and I've seen it first hand, that there can be some bullying going on, that there can be --

Hon Mr Wildman: Oh, oh.

Mr Mahoney: Well, I say to the minister, I grew up in an atmosphere where there was a lot of bullying going on, let me tell you. Many times there would be arm-twisting, there would be cajoling, there would even be threats.

In The Sudbury Incident -- get the book and read the book, The Sudbury Incident. I can tell you the member for Sudbury East has read it because her dad is even in that book. Get that book and read it. It talks about the intimidation tactics in that particular raid.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: Elie.

This can happen. What you're doing is that you're opening this up by passing legislation that takes away any right or does not provide a right, in fairness, for a secret ballot to take place on this issue. You are opening up the potential for abuse, and it's so blatantly contrary to everything that you have ever stood for as a party. As my colleague the member for St Catharines said the other day, "I used to have respect for this party, but they've just thrown all their principles out the door." Why have you done it?

1710

Mr Remo Mancini (Essex South): You mean the NDP of course; you're talking about the NDP.

Mr Mahoney: I'm talking about the NDP. As Mr Bradley said, I used to have respect for the NDP, but that was when they were in opposition and they could just stand up and spout off and say whatever they wanted and pretend they had principles, and then go to a policy conference and stand up and make all these new principles, that, 'Oh, this is what we're going to do if we ever get in power,' never believing for one minute that they would ever get elected. Let's face it, Premier "Bookie" Bob was the most shocked person in the province when he became the Premier of this province; I don't think there's any question. So now the principles go out the door, out the window, and away they go.

Let me just tell you one of the things that I think the public should understand very clearly. This legislation is so -- the word "draconian" probably doesn't do service to it, but it's so frightful that the government understood the only way it could possibly get this through was if it changed the rules of debate in this particular Legislature. They knew that if they operated under the rules that existed when we were the government of the day, there would be a filibuster to end all filibusters. Mr Kormos would be stricken from the record books for his filibuster on auto insurance. He would be replaced, I can suggest, by people in both parties who would go on for days expressing concern about the damage to the economy in this great province of Ontario.

So what did they do? They brought in rule changes.

Hon Mr Wildman: They wouldn't filibuster; it would just be a full debate.

Mr Mahoney: You can say it's a full debate. If it's a full debate, why are we on time allocation? If it's a full debate, why is it that tomorrow at 6 of the clock in this Legislature there will be a vote that will be carried unanimously by your side of the House and voted against unanimously by this side of the House? That is what you call full debate? That is what you call full parliamentary procedure? You have invoked time allocation that is ramming this bill down our throats, and we have our hands tied behind our backs.

The Conservative Party have been going around telling people that they're prepared to filibuster. I've yet to hear it. I don't know how they're going to do it. The rules don't allow it. We're limited to 30 minutes and then we're cut off, that's the end. In fact, you turn the mike off. You're the guy with the plug. You just pull the plug, the microphone goes off, Mr Speaker -- not him personally, but the person in that chair -- and it's over. Debate's over. You don't care.

Mr Mammoliti: I don't want to hear you for more than 30 minutes.

Mr Mahoney: I know you don't want to hear. That's why you did it. You don't want to hear the objections. The Labour Minister, who is here, doesn't understand the impact on the business community. He's said so in writing. The Premier's taking off tomorrow or the next day to Japan at a time when we're in a crisis in this province of unprecedented proportions, at a time --

Interjections.

Mr Mahoney: Well, I realize you're just out of school and you don't understand this stuff, but those are the facts. Unfortunately, we can stand here and we can call for you to stop this bill, but we know you're not going to do it. Let me tell you, folks, you will live to regret this decision.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I'm very pleased to rise in support of the motion put forward this afternoon by the leader of the Ontario PC Party, Mike Harris.

The motion, among other things, calls upon the government to scrap Bill 40. One of the fundamental reasons for that is that Bill 40, the NDP's labour law reforms, does not provide for a fundamental right of workers to a secret ballot vote for certification, ratification of collective agreement and the decision to strike. Bill 40 must be scrapped.

As the previous Liberal member correctly pointed out, we could spend all afternoon, as we are, giving our opinions to the government in trying to get them to change their minds. But since they're not listening to me or my colleagues in the Ontario PC Party or to some of the members of the Liberal Party, who have now been converted and share our belief that Bill 40 should be scrapped, I want to read what some of my constituents have said.

Tim Fryer, who's president of the Collingwood Chamber of Commerce, wrote to me in June regarding Bill 40. He writes:

"The Collingwood Chamber of Commerce has grave concerns regarding the government's proposed legislation to amend the Ontario Labour Relations Act, Bill 40.

"We believe that Bill 40 may have a devastating affect on our community. Our business community is trying to survive the worst economic conditions in decades. We are attempting to become more competitive and productive. The bill does absolutely nothing to help us in our efforts to ensure the viability of our business community and the future employment of the workers of the town of Collingwood."

Mr Don Hoy of Tottenham, who is employed by Hoechst Canada, writes:

"I am a member of the Toronto branch of the Canadian Printing Industries Association. The Canadian printing industry employs some 30,000 workers in the province of Ontario. We are a service industry to all other sectors of the Ontario economy. As these sectors prosper or fail, so do we.

"I am deeply concerned at the focus the NDP government has in proceeding with a radical overhaul of the Labour Relations Act. It is very clear from the broad response from the business community to date that there is widespread opposition to the implementation of these reforms. My own association's submission concerning this matter could not find one proposal it was able to endorse.

"Let's stop wasting our energy fighting over a large piece of rapidly decreasing pie and focus instead on creating an economic climate conducive to investment and job creation."

Steve Montgomery of Schuller Photography in Collingwood writes:

"There is no way in a democratic society that unions should be given more power than the owners of the business. The rights of the workers and the businesses will be handed on a silver platter to the money-hungry unions if the proposed legislation is passed. Talk about job security -- that's what union leaders are hoping for in return for years of NDP financial support."

Noel and Beverlee Black of Alliston wrote to me last January, pleading with me to bring some common sense to this government. They write:

"We take this opportunity, as concerned residents of Ontario and as citizens of Canada, to protest the ludicrous proposal to amend the Ontario Labour Relations Act. As if the country in general and this province in particular are not in enough trouble, who in their right mind would set out to repay favours or try to garner them at the expense of human suffering?

"Mr Rae, who to my knowledge has never put in an average working man's day in his life, is setting out to create a sunset for a once proud province. 'Let them eat cake.' It must have been a relative of Premier Bob's who said that. She was not aware either of the plight and discontent of the people in the real world."

The Teeples from Tottenham write:

"We are partners in a small construction business which employs a unionized workforce. We have almost 20 years of experience dealing with unions and have never encountered any situation which would require the draconian changes proposed by the NDP government. This government should concentrate on stimulating business activity, creating consumer confidence, creating new jobs and allowing our business community to remain competitive and productive. They should not be inventing solutions to problems which do not exist.

"We all see the revisions for what they are: paybacks to large unions for their support of the NDP. 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it': words to live by. Start by scrapping the proposed revisions to the Ontario Labour Relations Act."

That's exactly what the motion calls for the government to do and exactly what the motion says to the public that we will do if the Ontario PCs form the next government. We will scrap Bill 40.

Since they don't believe the business community, perhaps they'll believe one of the workers. Marg Brown of Collingwood writes:

"I do not want to be forced to belong to a union without choice. Current changes to the Labour Relations Act would almost guarantee no more choice to me. If I can't imagine working under this legislation, I can imagine how owners and investors must feel. If there are to be changes, let's make them fairer for us, the people. Talk to us; get our views." Something the government hasn't done.

Finally, Janet Field of Loretto writes:

"At a time when the world is moving towards a balanced society, I find it incomprehensible that your government should be so blatantly attempting to influence the labour-management scene with legislation so union-biased. I feel as a business person and a taxpayer that you should be reminded of your election promises" -- she's referring to the NDP government -- "to represent all Ontario citizens, not just those covered by union agreements. These labour reforms mean more economic pain for my constituents and for people all across Ontario."

1720

Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): I rise to speak once again on the issue of Bill 40 and the fact that I think this resolution introduced by the third party opposition will and should be defeated. Let me tell you why, Mr Speaker.

The first part of the resolution states, "Bill 40 will kill jobs and destroy investment in Ontario." I look at my community of Brantford and what's been happening since the last recession of 1981-82, throughout the 1980s when we had the boom time, the implications of the free trade agreement on our industries in Brantford. We've had tough times. No denying it, I think Brantford is one of the hardest-hit communities anywhere in Ontario with the plants that we've lost: the Masseys and Whites in the boom years of the 1980s, when the then governments, the Conservatives and Liberals, turned their backs on the workers of the Masseys and Whites and said, "No, we're not going to help you."

American Healthcare, Chicago Raw Hide, Maple Leaf Foods, Protein Foods and Koehring Waterous, the oldest industry in Brantford -- all gone. They're not gone because of Bill 40; they've left or closed up because of the economy, because of receivership, because of corporate rationalization and because of free trade.

The member for Brampton South said, "Give me some proof of where investment and jobs are being created." Again, I'm not going to speak for the rest of Ontario, and the Fords and the Chryslers and the Du Ponts and their billions of dollars of investments that are coming, but my own community of Brantford. The member for Brampton South said he wanted proof. In my community we have Gates Canada, one of the largest employers now in Brantford, what used to be called a medium-sized company.

In April, during the height of Bill 40 and the debate in the public eye, in the public domain, that was occurring, Gates invested $4 million in the plant in Brantford. An addition $8 million has come since then because of the success of that first investment. All this during the heightened debate on Bill 40. Gates Canada is an American-owned company whose head office is in Denver, Colorado. The directors made the decision to invest those millions in the plant in Brantford even though Bill 40 was being debated.

BASF, a German multinational, invested $6 million into the plant in Brantford to enhance safety and to establish a warehouse in its manufacturing plant so that it can expand production. They're looking at expanding their production lines as well. This is a German company, and this investment was made during the heightened debate on Bill 40.

Keeprite -- you've all heard about Keeprite; I've mentioned it many times in here -- a Canadian-owned company, made the decision to close a plant in America -- Redbudd, Illinois -- and move the production lines to my community of Brantford. We anticipate doubling employment over the next five years at their site in Brantford. All this during the debate of Bill 40.

The most recent, Western Foundry, bought a foundry that was in receivership, retooled it, invested millions into it and has recently had the grand opening. It hired 90 employees into this plant. They have great expectations.

The key, I think, is that all these plants are unionized. All these plants have different ownership -- local, Canadian, American and German -- and they all made the decision to invest. The member for Brampton South said he wanted proof. There is some proof in my community of Brantford.

The second part of this resolution says, "Bill 40 ignores the rights of individual workers by not legislating a secret ballot vote for certification, ratification of a collective agreement and the decision to strike." That's an incorrect wording, because with the updating of the labour act there is a secret ballot provision before workers can go on strike and for certifying collective bargaining, for agreeing to a collective agreement. There is a section in there for a secret ballot.

The member for Markham made a comment that I believe said, "What's good for Michael Harcourt and the New Democratic government in BC should be good enough for Ontario." Let me tell you what Michael Harcourt and the BC government brought in with their labour reform. They used to have the secret ballot for certification, no matter what percentage of union cards were signed, and they said: "That's not working. It's wrong." What did they do? They brought in the same certification process that we have in Ontario.

So I hope the member for Markham can support us on that aspect, because the BC government has said it's wrong. Do you know who supported them? It was labour and it was business. It was one of the consensus agreements that was reached during the issue of labour reform in BC. They said, "It's working in Ontario." What they had in BC wasn't working and they were going to change it, and that's what they did.

Lastly, I think the last part of their resolution, that we "repeal Bill 40 following the next election," is a sad commentary on the blinkers that the third party, the Conservative Party, has as it perceives how today's economy functions. To them I say, this is 1992, not the 1950s, not the 1960s. Unfortunately, the attitude they have is going to result in the next election guaranteeing that they're going to remain the third party and that the political battleground will once again be between the Liberals and the New Democrats.

The resolution here was ill thought out and inaccurate. As a result, I don't think anyone in this House should be supporting it.

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): This afternoon I wish to address the Conservative resolution, which claims that Bill 40 "will kill jobs and destroy investment in Ontario." I want to make the intent of this bill clear to the people of Ontario, because Mr Harris has maligned the intent of this bill.

In the past, labour and management have been in adversarial positions. Big unions and big companies were primarily male domains of power, where unions fought against employers and the employers sought to control the employees. The time has come for this to end.

It is more than coincidence that both sides are now realizing the need for cooperation during a recession. Survival certainly is a strong motivator. Cooperation is the way of the future. We have only to look around to Europe and to Japan to realize that economic success is related to the input of workers to the workplace. Very often, employees have key suggestions and information on how to do things better, smarter and more efficiently, and employers who are successful know, value and respect one of the key parts of their business: their workers. This is what this legislation is all about.

Last February, in Niagara Falls, the Niagara Region Development Corp held a two-day conference at the Americana Inn on Lundy's Lane, and it was entitled Innovation in Niagara Business: The Way of the Future. While I was there, I heard three local companies explain their success, and all three stated that the involvement and commitment of their workers was very important to their success. They gave examples of profit-sharing and the very close involvement of their workforce. This is very clearly the way to go.

This bill updates labour relations after many years. No longer are we a male, full-time, heavy-industry economy in this province. We are also women, part-time workers and immigrants. Don't these workers have the right to decide if they wish to form a union? This legislation, for reasons of equality, extends this right to them.

This past year at the opening of an Austrian manufacturer's new plant in Niagara Falls, I spoke to the owner, who was from Europe. They are distributing heavy equipment to all of North America from this location very close to the border. What I asked this manufacturer and owner from Europe was, "Why did you locate on this side of the river as opposed to the other side?" What he said to me was: "We as Europeans would rather locate in Canada than the US. We feel more comfortable with the way of life here, your way of doing business, your social programs and your culture." We have a lot to be proud of in this country and we must strengthen our highly skilled, flexible and dedicated workforce. That is what this bill is about, to strengthen.

1730

Mr Harris, in his opening remarks this afternoon, said, "Motives are suspect." I believe that the people of Ontario who have been subjected for the many past months to extremely warped, misleading full-page newspaper advertising will judge whose motives are suspect. The people of Ontario, I believe, can judge quite adequately what is reasonable and what is rational and I believe the people of this province can tell what is irrational. I say that the position of the Conservative Party is going to be proved irrational.

The motives and intent of this bill are clear. They are to move ahead to equality and cooperation in the workplace and thus strengthen our economy. Maybe, possibly, the Conservative Party wants women and workers in this province to remain in the 1940s instead.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I rise in my place this afternoon to debate Mr Harris's motion, opposition day motion number 3. I don't know the folks looking on TV, but they can't see there are two people there from the Conservative Party. That shows you the depth and importance they attach to their opposition day. They've got the member for Finchley up there. He's chatting with someone else. We've got the member for Etobicoke, who's slouched in his chair and can hardly keep awake. I think the people of Ontario need to know what goes on in here. The cameras, unfortunately, are not allowed to pan over there, but if they were able to do that, then we would understand the hypocrisy in this motion here this afternoon. This is absolutely disgraceful.

Mr Stockwell: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Etobicoke West on a point of order.

Mr Stockwell: My point of order is that my riding is Etobicoke West, not Etobicoke South.

The Acting Speaker: An excellent point of information. The honourable member for Durham East.

Mr Mills: I apologize to the honourable member, but the member for Finchley is still chatting away. He's not interested.

Mr Stockwell: It's not Finchley; it's York Mills.

Mr Mills: You know what I mean.

This whole debate on Bill 40, as it has unfolded over the weeks and months in this Legislature and out in the constituency, struck me as rather peculiar. Everybody, with few exceptions, in the business world has gone bananas. I wonder why.

I live in very small-town Ontario. I look around in my community and have a fellow who works in the liquor store. He belongs to the liquor store employees' association, which is a union. Up the street from him there's a fellow who commutes to and from Toronto every day who's a fireman, and he belongs to the firefighters' union. Then I have, naturally, where I live, several members of CAW 222, who work in General Motors in Oshawa, and they belong to the union. Then I have a nurse who works in Bowmanville Memorial Hospital, and she belongs to the union. I'm trying to think of all the other folks around me -- oh, there's a teacher on the corner. He belongs to the teachers' union.

So we have all these fine people who belong to unions, who contribute to the economy of my community. They give to the United Way; they're there doing volunteer work. To put all that in perspective, I don't hear anything coming from the third party that they're wrong, that's dreadful, that should be disbanded or they should be put under.

But up the road a little bit, in another not-too-posh house, lives a woman who's trying to support two children on 66-cent dollars, compared to what the normal rate of pay is. This woman is struggling to keep her family properly clothed and above water. Where does she work? She works in an environment where, goodness only knows, they need some organization, because this woman is being taken advantage of daily, weekly, yearly. She's not getting her fair crack, and this is what Bill 40 is going to do. It's going to ensure that the minorities, that the women, the aboriginal people will get the opportunity to bring them up to strength so that they can live.

I've spoken to this woman and she said to me, "You know, Gord, it makes a difference to the children." She said, "When the kids go to school, they're going in clothes that they get from the Sally Ann, and it rubs off on the other kids." You know, Mr Speaker, children are cruel. They're cruel to one another and they take up on this and it's a pity, because if these women get jobs, well-paid jobs -- I'm not talking about the minimum wage and less than the minimum wage -- their families flourish and they become part of the community and they're not segregated from other children.

In my riding I have a steady trail of people coming in to see me on Fridays, like you all do, everybody does. Even the member for Etobicoke West, if he's there, I would imagine he does. They give me tales of woe you wouldn't believe -- what happened to them at work. The last thing they say to me all the time is, "Boy, if only we had a union where we worked, this wouldn't happen."

Mr Stockwell: Oh, Gord, please.

Mr Mills: This is a fact. He's grimacing and going crackers. I don't know what sort of people go into your constituency office, but I'm sure that the people going to my constituency office are telling me: "This wouldn't happen if we'd had a union. We wouldn't have been victimized like this." This is awful and you know it. You people are dead against unions because you've got no time for them. The member at the back there, he just relishes this and it's disgusting.

Interjection: What's his name?

Mr Mills: It's the member for Finchley; no, Don Mills.

Interjection: York Mills.

Mr Mills: York Mills. Anyway, Mr Speaker, I've been given the word that I've got to sit down for a little while, but I just want to say, too, in my lifetime -- I've worked for 50 years -- I can't tell you people over there the times that I've been victimized in jobs. I can remember when I only used to get a Sunday afternoon off every two weeks and then when that Sunday afternoon came up, my boss said, "Where are you going?" I said, "I'm off." He said, "You were off last week." I said, "You've got to be nuts," and that's how they treat people. They manipulate people, they do all kinds of awful things to people that I can tell you. You know what happens to working people. It's disgusting. What Bill 40 will do is put things right for the working man in Ontario and I'm supporting it. Wonderful bill.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I'm going to speak for five minutes and there's a whole bunch of people here who are going to tell me when my five minutes are up. I'm going to tell you right now, Speaker, that I'm opposing this particular resolution. Why? Because I'm going to be voting for Bill 40, as I did on second reading, and as I would have on first reading, if it indeed had come to the vote. Maybe it did.

In any event, Speaker, look, I come from Welland-Thorold; you know that. I come from a community that has become strong and vital because of hardworking women and men coming as new Canadians, working and working hard. Like I've said so many times -- and I could name names and I could name you family names, some of whom have been there for only one generation, some of whom have been there for tens of generations and literally hundreds of years -- these people worked hard. Why? So often and more often than not for the most modest of goals, and that was to make life a little better for their children than it was for themselves. To do that they made sacrifices and they were committed and they were dedicated and they stuck to principles and when they said they believed in something, by God, they persisted in that belief, and they were honourable in pursuing their labour.

To protect themselves -- yes, to protect themselves -- from the injustice that can so often be imposed in the workplace as a result of the great power of an employer in contrast to the non-existence of power of a Hungarian or Ukrainian or Polish or Slovak or Italian immigrant, or a New Canadian from any part of the world, I tell you that they saw as part of the means of creating a balance the creation of labour unions, of trade unions.

Welland-Thorold-Crowland -- Crowland, that very south end of Welland, which has a great history in itself -- is one of the places in this country that nurtured trade unionism and that cultivated it and disseminated it across not just the province but this country and across this continent. I'm blessed, I tell you, to have not only people in my own family, but neighbours, friends, colleagues and mentors who were very much a part of that movement over the years.

1740

One of the most troubling things about the debate over Bill 40 -- indeed it has been a grand debate by the committee, and I was honoured with the privilege of chairing that committee and I did my best. That committee travelled about and sat here at Queen's Park for five weeks. There may well have been the occasional committee that has sat longer hearing submissions from members of the public, but I can't think of any, or very many, during the course of the four or five years that I've been here. Speaking to some of my colleagues who have been here a lot longer than me -- why, even talking to Mel Swart, who was here for 13 years, before 1988, and consulting with him, he can't think of very many committees that heard from more groups and more individuals. There were in excess of 250 submissions made to the resources development committee.

Of course, there was a wide range of views and nobody should expect the construction industry to be in favour of any legislation that provides for greater rights for working people. These are some of the same people who told you that free trade was the way to go. These are some of the same people who told you that the GST was the right way to tax goods, and these are some of the same people who tell you that movement of jobs south as a result of free trade, all the way down to that belt in the north of Mexico, is what's going to bring prosperity for Canadian workers. Well, hogwash.

Let me tell you this, and it's unfortunate that the opposition wouldn't address some of the real issues affecting employment, and more regrettably unemployment, here in the province of Ontario. It's unfortunate that the opposition wouldn't address the issues of free trade and that Mulroney-USA-Washington deal that sucked the life out of our industries.

I remember the federal election in 1988, and the owners of Atlas Steels in Welland had the audacity to write letters to their workers, those hardworking women and men who made that quality stainless steel in Welland at Atlas Steels. Atlas Steels sent letters to each and every one of those employees telling them that if Atlas Steels didn't have free trade -- what that meant is that if you didn't vote for Brian Mulroney -- why, there was going to be havoc wreaked in the steel industry.

Well, enough people voted for Brian Mulroney to cause the free trade deal, and I tell you, Atlas Steels now is in the process of shifting its jobs south of the border, not because of Bill 40, not because of the cost of doing business per se, but because it can have access to cheap labour, unskilled labour, unorganized labour in jurisdictions where it can abuse that labour and produce steel in a way that we, with principles of fairness overriding our choices, we, with principles of fairness overriding our relationship between working people and owners of industry, do not. And, I tell you, we should insist that those prevail.

Do you want to look at the real causes of unemployment? My five minutes are up. Take a look at the cancellation of the Lake Gibson hydro-electric project in Thorold. That has not only resulted in the destruction of the potential for a clean and environmentally sound hydro-electric project, but it's also caused SNC Lavalin to announce that it's going to be moving its office in Thorold out of Thorold and merging with its main office in the province of Ontario, eliminating some 40-plus jobs. It's going to result in the loss of the incredible number of jobs that would have been created by virtue of the construction itself of that particular project.

Do you want to talk about job loss? We can talk about job loss as a result of the incredible --

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Gary will.

Mr Kormos: Gary Wilson will -- about the incredible cost of power in this province and the inability of Ontario Hydro to address the need for affordable power, consistent power and power that's clean --

Ms Murdock: That has nothing to do with Bill 40.

Mr Kormos: Well, those are matters that had to be spoken to, Ms Murdock, because I didn't have a chance this afternoon to talk about the destruction of the Lake Gibson project in Thorold, nor did I have a chance this afternoon to talk about the impact of excessive power cost to companies like Atlas Steels, Union Carbide, Exolon, other abrasives manufacturers in the Niagara region, and the fact that we'd better do something soon. The opposition should be addressing some of the real problems that we're facing rather than mucking around with the less-than-frank discussion about Bill 40.

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I'm happy to join this debate on this rather unfortunate opposition day resolution from the Leader of the Opposition.

He reminded me, when he went into the reasons for this resolution and what his colleague said too, of those stories we used to hear about some 40 years after the Second World War ended; the soldiers who would be found still wandering around in isolated areas thinking the war was still on, and had to be told that things had moved since they were fighting. This is what the Leader of the Opposition reminded me of, that he's fighting a war that is long past, and in fact that kind of mentality just leads to the conditions that are destroying our province and the industrial world that we know now.

In any case, I want to say that the need for change is quite clear and it's something we've addressed. There have been no significant changes to the Labour Relations Act in over 15 years, and this is what we're moving to address. We've seen that there are many more women in the workforce now, many more part-time workers, and the service industry has much expanded. These are areas that have to be addressed by the resolution.

The opposition has dwelt on this issue of democracy and just how democratic is our workplace, it would appear. I'd say that they have a rather selective view of democracy in the workplace, that it's as though the workers themselves are closing down plants and moving them south of the border. In fact, workers in the communities they live in have no say when this happens. If democracy existed, maybe when it came time to deciding whether a workplace were moved out of the community, then it would stay. But the decisions are made in a very unaccountable, undemocratic fashion, and that is something that unions, at least, have some control over. They can negotiate conditions that will slow down that kind of movement. This, of course, is very important.

I want to talk briefly about the positive aspects of Bill 40, the positive things that unions bring, not only into the conditions that are in the community, but in the workplace as well. It isn't just the wages and benefits that unions address, but certainly, as my colleagues have suggested, over the years the hard work of unionists in all our communities has guaranteed that we have decent wages and working conditions. They go out into the community because of the efforts in the workplace. I'm thinking of something like health and safety that unions have fought for in the workplace. But what's the sense of having a safe and healthy workplace if you don't have similar conditions in the community? These are things in the environment where unions have led the way in guaranteeing or ensuring that we have healthy communities as well.

The other thing is just having a voice. Unions allow ordinary working people to have some stake in their workplace that, again, carries out into the community, and to make sure that the need for decent living conditions and decent communities is heard. This is what unions can provide. Any kind of movement towards this is a benefit not only to the workplace but to the community at large.

Finally, I want to return again to this idea that it is a new environment that we're working in here, that cooperation is what will see us through these trying times and into the new industrial environment. We've got to work together with all aspects of the workplace -- management, labour and the community at large -- to make sure that we have the resources there, to make sure that all our industries are competitive and will work to make the best use of the resources we have, including the workers.

I want to turn the last two minutes over to my colleague, who has worked with the committee through the consultation process. I think he would like to wrap up.

Mr Hayes: I think it's a very sad day that in the 20th century we have a resolution here that tries to deny working people the basic right to organize, and I think it really is a shame.

I hear the members across the floor talking about all the people who are opposed to this piece of legislation. Well, I can tell you that I've had a lot of people who have come to me and asked about how they can get organized because they're not making a decent wage or decent benefits. Do you know what these people tell me? These people tell me, "Please don't mention my name, because if you mention my name, that I even spoke union, I lose my job." I think that's really a shame.

One thing I'm very pleased is in this legislation is the part of banning replacement workers. It'll stop what that Conservative government did back in the -- if they can remember the Fleck strike, they sent the police in there, and beat up on workers and beat up on some of my own colleagues and my family, who were there to help those people organize. They sent the police down.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): What year was that?

Mr Stockwell: When was that?

Mr Hayes: It was in the 1970s when the Conservative government was here.

Interjections.

Mr Hayes: Yes, times have changed. I think the sooner this legislation is passed the better, to give people basic needs. We don't have to go back --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Order. Time for opposition day motion number 3 has ended.

Mr Harris has moved:

"That whereas the New Democratic Party government's amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act, known as Bill 40, will kill jobs and destroy investment in Ontario;

"And whereas Bill 40 ignores the rights of individual workers by not legislating a secret ballot vote for certification, ratification of a collective agreement and the decision to strike; and

"And whereas a Progressive Conservative government will repeal Bill 40 following the next election and initiate a fair and balanced tripartite process to review labour relations in Ontario;

"Therefore, this House calls upon the NDP government to immediately withdraw Bill 40."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed to the motion will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members; five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1753 to 1758.

The Acting Speaker: Would the members please take their seats? I'd ask the members to please take their seats.

Mr Harris has moved opposition day motion number 3. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and stand one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Beer, Callahan, Carr, Conway, Cordiano, Cousens, Eddy, Elston, Eves, Grandmaître, Harnick, Harris, Henderson, Jackson, Jordan, Kwinter, Mahoney, Mancini, Marland, Miclash, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Poole, Runciman, Sola, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please stand one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Abel, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Farnan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard;

MacKinnon, Mackenzie, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pouliot, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward (Brantford), Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 32; the nays 64.

The Acting Speaker: The nays being 64 and the ayes 32, I declare the motion lost.

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I wish to extend happy birthday greetings to the member for Windsor-Sandwich, Mr George Dadamo.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of privilege but certainly an information point.

It now being after 6 of the clock, this House does stand adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1803.