ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE
Report continued from volume A.
1730
PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA FONCTION PUBLIQUE ET LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 117, An Act to revise the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, to amend the Public Service Act and the Labour Relations Act and to make related amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 117, Loi révisant la Loi sur la négociation collective des employés de la Couronne, modifiant la Loi sur la fonction publique et la Loi sur les relations de travail et apportant des modifications connexes à d'autres lois.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): I believe the honourable member for York Mills had the floor last and can resume his participation.
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Bill 117 is an omnibus bill dealing with three NDP objectives: reform of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, expansion of political rights to crown employees and the creation of whistleblower protection for crown employees who want to blow the whistle on government mismanagement.
Bill 117 forces unionization of crown employees and supports the politicization of the civil service. The PCs therefore cannot support a bill that forces unionization of the civil service, and we certainly won't condone the erosion of the neutrality of the civil service.
Bill 117 introduces the concept of a whistleblowing counsel to cope with gross mismanagement of this government. Frankly, if the government were working properly, gross mismanagement wouldn't be happening.
The whistleblowing counsel, as established in this bill, is not going to stop the --
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): There have been quite a few conversations going on. Would members, if they would like to have a conversation, please do so somewhere else. I would like to be able to hear the member who has the floor.
Mr Turnbull: The whistleblowing counsel, as established in this bill, is certainly not going to stop the problem of the lack of effective management by the Management Board or by cabinet. The PCs are going to vote against Bill 117.
Turning to the first section of the bill, the CECBA reform, or so-called reform, the portions of the bill relating to this are similar to Bill 49, the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1993, which was introduced June 14, 1993.
Frankly, it's a payback to the unions. The timing is very suspect, because we now have the NDP in a rift with the union supporters. The jobs and the economy should be the concentration of this government, but they've lost their way. They don't have any ideas on the economic front so they're concentrating on paying back their traditional support base.
We know that when we talk about jobs and the economy, they've come forward with this weak-kneed program called Jobs Ontario, which is totally flawed. It's been rechristened Jokes Ontario.
Bill 117 mirrors the flawed legislation which the government brought forward for the private sector in Bill 40. We're not going to agree to the transplantation of a flawed process which has affected our private sector economy by just supplanting another bill in the public sector.
In August 1992, the employees' group known as the Ontario Public Servants Against Forced Enlistment or OP SAFE stated in its opposition, "...unilateral action by the government to force us into a union without our consent." That's what they thought about this bill.
OP SAFE objected to what appears to be a done deal with OPSEU. The concerns that were expressed at the time by OP SAFE were with respect to the seniority of its members, an inadequate consultation process, a lack of choice in bargaining units, and that 2,000 people were being forced into OPSEU.
The government has guaranteed the seniority rights, apparently, of these 2,000 people, but strangely enough it's not in Bill 117. Frankly, with this government's track record of keeping its promises, I would certainly want to see those words in the bill, because nobody trusts this government. They have broken all of their promises. We know that document An Agenda for People, which is suitable for tearing up into squares and putting in the outhouse if you have one.
Let's talk about the payback to OPSEU in this bill. We know that 2,000 people are going to be forced, without any choice of their own, into OPSEU. Current OPSEU contributions, I believe, are $35 per pay period. There are 26 pay periods per year, that's $910 each and every one of these 2,000 people are going to contribute. In other words, with 2,000 employees, $1.8 million into the coffers of OPSEU. You'd better believe that OPSEU is being paid back by this government.
There are another 7,000 employees in the management and professional ranks who will have the option to be represented by a bargaining agent if they wish, and they can choose their bargaining agent. If, by any chance, they went into OPSEU, that would be another 7,000 at $910 per annum, which is $6.37 million. Think about that. When you add the two together, we're talking about $8.19 million in potential extra revenue that OPSEU is going to get. I guess Freddie Upshaw must be pretty pleased about this.
The Association of Management, Administrative and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario has been recognized under this bill as a legitimate staff organization by Management Board, but any union could organize this group.
The OPS, which is professionals, doctors, lawyers and professional engineers, will, I'm pleased to say, be able to maintain their own professional association and bargaining units.
PCs, as I've said, have a great deal of trouble with 2,000 people being forced into OPSEU with no choice whatsoever as to bargaining unit.
If this government were truly interested in furthering democracy -- it is more than passing strange that in the name of the governing party they have the word "democratic" -- then indeed it would allow the people in that group of 2,000 to opt out of OPSEU. In fact union members should be able to direct their funds to charities if they wish, instead of going into a union that force their members to have a contribution sent to the NDP.
There's something fundamentally smelly about legislation that we're being forced to act on now where the government is forcing a group of people into a union which makes forced payments for all of its members into the NDP coffers. I suggest that everybody in the government has a conflict of interest in this bill. Think about this. This is quite an unusual situation.
Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The member opposite is making allegations about the government members in terms of a conflict of interest. This is clearly out of order. I would suggest that everyone in the public in Ontario knows there is no direct contribution from OPSEU to the government party.
The Acting Speaker: No, that is not a point of order. The member for York Mills does have a right to his opinion.
Mr Turnbull: You're quite right. It isn't a point of order, but it's a point of nuisance, because I think the government recognize that it is defending the indefensible. It's undemocratic and it's repugnant, what the government is doing.
All current members of OPSEU should have the right to opt out of the union, as indeed any member of any union should have the right of opting out of a union. It's absolutely obscene that people are forced to join an organization.
1740
I'd like to give an example of how some of the people are reacting. The landscape architects who work for the government want to join the engineering bargaining group called PEGO, Professional Engineers of the Province of Ontario. PEGO wants them. They've said they want them. But the landscape architects are not being given a choice in this. The government with its very, very close ties to OPSEU -- in fact, one of the senior ministers of the crown, an ex-bargaining agent of OPSEU -- is forcing this group of people into a union. I can't think of anything more repugnant than that, and I think every single member of the NDP should go away and just mull that one over if they think it's democratic for them to pass a bill which forces people into a union that they don't want to be in, even though they would like to join another group, and particularly when the government has such close ties with this union.
The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, Mike Cooper, said in his opening remarks for debate: "Everyone with an interest in CECBA agrees on the need for reform. It has long been desired by the government, as employer, and the public service unions which represent employees in the Ontario public service and affiliated crown agencies." The employees have not been adequately consulted and most of them do not want to join the union.
The PA said the 2,000 that I've spoken about before "share a community of interest with an existing OPSEU bargaining unit." Do you know what? I would suggest that a "community of interest" is Newspeak for forcing something down somebody's throat which is undemocratic.
Let's just turn to the question of strikes. This bill will allow members to strike as opposed to having binding arbitration. Here's the interesting thing: OPSEU has been on record since 1977 as wanting the right to strike, yet oddly, in a response to Bill 49, the bill that this supersedes, Fred Upshaw, the president of OPSEU, was less than enthusiastic. I'd like to just quote his words: "The right to strike is not a basic right for us, when we've been asking for choice. That's what we requested, but we're only being given partial choice." Fred Upshaw was referring to the fact that OPSEU will lose its unilateral right to binding arbitration.
If Parliament worked the way it should work, I can tell you, I could go through this bill point by point and I could find some elements to support in the bill. But I cannot support the bill as it's written. Once again we have this obnoxious animal called an omnibus bill, which lumps together some of the things that we agree with and some of things we disagree with. But it's strange that OPSEU always wanted the right to strike and now they're being given it, they're not so sure that they want the right to strike if it means they have to give up the right to binding arbitration. Binding arbitration, as the government has pointed out, hasn't worked terribly well because the arbitrators have not been instructed as to what the parameters are within which they must work.
The public sector throughout Canada -- it's not just a problem in this province. The awards to the public sector employees have outstripped the gains which have been made by private sector workers. It used to be, many years ago, that you worked for the public service in the full knowledge that you probably earned a certain amount less than the private sector but you had great security. Today, many in the public service have now outstripped the private sector.
Indeed, when this government came to power, in that first year in power, at the end of the year, when the opposition parties examined the books of the province, we found that the pay bill for the public service had gone up by about 14%. I know the government would say, "Ah, but we only gave" -- I think the number was a 5.8% increase. But on top of that there were merit increases, there were promotional increases, there were increases for everything, which drove the end bill, which is really the number we have to look at, drove up the cost of the civil service, by 14%. That wasn't the right way to go. The opposition parties told the government it wasn't the right way to go.
Now, in desperation, they're turning and they're saying, "Okay, we're going to give you the right to strike," and Freddie Upshaw is saying, "I'm not sure that I like that, because we still would like to have the right to binding arbitration." Perhaps there is a certain poetic justice in this. But strikes work against the public interest. Taxpayers suffer and there are interruptions of services. In a great many cases the public doesn't have a choice to go somewhere else for those services.
Would we like to turn the Ontario public service into something which approximates the service that the post office gives? I hope not, because the post office is an unmitigated disaster.
I know the absolute chaos that unions created in Britain. It took some pretty radical legislation to turn Britain around. Unions had got a hold of Britain in the worst way. It's maybe not fair to say unions; there were a few powerful and unreasonable unions. We in the PC Party recognize that the vast majority of people who work and are members of unions are very reasonable people. But among the large unions we have a powerful élite who are serving their own ends, and political ends, which are very closely tied to the governing party. That's why we're very suspicious.
The "essential services" clause which is incorporated in this bill is essentially unworkable. Section 22 defines it as "services that are necessary to enable the employer to prevent danger to life, health or safety, the destruction or serious deterioration of machinery, equipment or premises, serious environmental damage, or disruption of the administration of the courts."
Do we want strikes in the health services? We've already got some pretty serious waiting lists. Do we want to further block up the health service with this type of approach?
Do we want the revenue-gathering system of this province to be closed down due to a strike? We're already in desperate need of revenue, as the provincial Minister of Finance constantly reminds us, mainly because of the overspending of this government. They're running huge deficits which have to be paid to foreign bankers.
I'm reminded of the fact that this government had the dubious distinction last year of being the fourth-largest borrower in the international monetary markets in the world, only following the World Bank, which is in first place, the kingdom of Sweden, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which is to help the former eastern bloc countries get on their feet. And then Ontario, not the government of Canada, is the next-largest borrower in the world in the international monetary markets.
We rank up there in lights. We can go into the Guinness Book of Records as being one of the great borrowers of the world. It's a very dubious distinction which future governments are going to have to unravel. So I put it to you: Can we afford to have the people who work in the revenue service of this province be out on strike? Most people have no alternative, in getting services that they're looking for, than the government services. Striking attacks the attitude of the civil service and depletes the morale of the civil service.
1750
I would like to point out the curious situation that during debates on the social contract legislation, the PCs brought forward an amendment to define "essential services," the content of which was essentially the same as the "essential services" clause in section 22 of Bill 117, save and except for reference to the courts. But surprise, surprise, when we brought that amendment forward, guess what? The NDP voted against our motion. But the government has decided it wants it in this bill.
You can't have it both ways. We said it was a good thing; you voted against it. You're putting it in your own legislation. Does that mean the government has come to a realization that the Tories were right all along, or is it saying it's wrong in inserting it in this bill? It will be interesting in further debate.
Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): We know you guys are right, like way right.
Mr Turnbull: My colleague from the Liberal Party says, "We know you guys are right." I would remind you of the old adage that the opposite of right is not left, it is wrong. I'll leave you with that.
Bill 117 defines essential services for some good reasons. The NDP ignored our advice during the social contract, and now they are finally realizing the light. But there's a discrepancy; there's a lack of consistency.
The Association of Lawyers and Officers of the Crown, a group of some 420 people, is concerned about being forced to strike to resolve collective bargaining issues. They don't want to do this. That same organization questions who would be deemed to be performing essential services and is concerned that there's no clear understanding of how the "essential services" definition will be interpreted and which of its members will be deemed to be performing essential services.
ALOC has quite clearly stated it prefers the arbitration system, and as I've said before, it's quite clear that the arbitration system needs work. We need to instruct the arbitrators on very clear parameters within which they can make an award, which should be consistent with the economic reality of the province.
We need to democratize unions, and the best way of doing that is to institute secret ballots on any strike vote. The PCs have consistently called for this sort of democratization. During the Bill 40 hearings, we put forward an amendment requiring such treatment and that it would be mailed out, but the government saw fit to turn its back on this.
There are problems with certification and decertification and the right to strike. We should not be transplanting the mistakes that we made in Bill 40 holus-bolus into the public sector. The NDP defeated the PC amendments, the amendments which would have clearly helped the revitalization of the provincial economy, and we have seen the devastation which has been caused by it, because companies, quite frankly, when they look at the provincial economy and the legislation which binds companies, are concluding that Ontario is not a friendly place to come and invest in.
You can't measure that. That's the trouble. The government will say that's not true, and it always trots out the examples of where companies have expanded. Where companies have expanded has to a great extent been because of the success of free trade, and on the other hand, we have seen the government literally buying companies to expand here, with millions and millions of dollars, and that is the only way that companies are deciding to stay.
We should allow strike votes, the ballots should be mailed out to members prior to a strike vote and the members should be allowed to mail in a secret ballot by mail, to be counted confidentially by a separate, independent organization, so that you would truly have a reflection of the wishes of the members of the union instead of a small group of the leaders of the union, who are all a bunch of NDP hacks.
Turning to the whistleblower protection: Whistleblowing portions of the bill are being codified for the first time. It's interesting that we've had such delays in the legislation, since this was part of the NDP's 1990 throne speech. But I'm not really surprised that the NDP have dragged their heels on it because their government has been so prone to bad management that they don't like the whistleblowing but they're reluctantly having to bring this forward.
Bill 117 defines "serious...wrongdoing" as "an act or omission of an institution or of an employee" that "contravenes a statute or regulation; represents gross mismanagement; causes a gross waste of money; represents an abuse of authority; or poses a grave health or safety hazard...or a grave environmental hazard."
As I said in my opening remarks, if the Management Board was doing its job properly, there would be no gross mismanagement. Rather than having to create a counsel office for this, the proper checks and balances should be instituted.
Every ministry has an internal audit branch to keep track of spending of provincial funds. The previous Provincial Auditor, Mr Archer, surveyed all internal audit branches and deemed that they were defective and incapable of doing the jobs that they were supposed to fix. Whistleblowing counsel in and of itself is not objectionable because wrongdoing by any party, any government, deserves to be exposed. It's not going to get rid of brown paper envelopes, so don't worry, Murray, we'll still manage to get the brown paper envelopes.
This part of the legislation is less objectionable, but the trouble is it doesn't have any teeth in it. Why isn't the Management Board functioning properly? That's a question that we should be considering in this bill. We should consider that before we embark on any legislation. Has the government acted on the last three auditor's reports and cleaned up the serious problems that the auditor has pointed out? Frankly, I don't think so, because we're reminded that the last time the auditor came forward to us he refused to sign the province's books. He thinks you're cooking the books.
Instead of whistleblowing legislation, we need major changes to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. It's offensive that members of the Legislature, after many, many weeks of filing an FOI, get back paper where most of the text has been crossed out with a felt marker and it has been photocopied so it's almost impossible to use the information we get. This is the information that the NDP in opposition always used to say should be freely available to all of the members of the Legislature.
The latest little trick that they're trying is that they are charging members. They say: "Oh, well, that's quite an extensive FOI. We're going to send you a bill. Would you be prepared to pay $5,000?" There's no money for the opposition parties to be able to pay that. This is information that belongs to the people of the province, the information that the government always said, in opposition, it was entitled to. But we're not getting the information; we're getting pages with more blackout than text on them and we're being charged for them because the government wants to slow us down finding out about its incompetency. It is absolutely disgraceful.
The Acting Speaker: Would the member relate his comments to Bill 117, please.
Mr Turnbull: Madam Speaker, this is exactly related to Bill 117. I'm pleased that you said that, because we're talking about the FOI being the proper vehicle for getting information out of the government, not brown paper envelopes. You don't need whistleblowing legislation if the government is functioning properly, but the government isn't functioning properly. That is the point. This legislation is toothless. It doesn't address the fundamental problem of lack of information for the opposition, quite simply because the government has so much to hide.
1800
Let's just turn to the question of political activity. Bill 117 broadens and defines the political activity rights of crown employees and incorporates much of Bill 111, the Public Service Amendment Act (Political Activity Rights), 1993, which they introduced actually on December 3, 1992.
Bill 117 states that crown employees engage in political activity when they do the following:
"(a) does anything in support of or in opposition to a federal or provincial party;
"(b) does anything in support of or in opposition to a candidate in a federal, provincial or municipal election;
"(c) comments publicly and outside the scope of the duties...on matters that are directly related to those duties and that are dealt with in the positions or policies of a federal or provincial political party or in the positions publicly expressed by a candidate in a federal or provincial election."
They are deemed to be involved in political activity when they do those things.
The restricted group under the present legislation limits deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers, directors, most managers, senior financial and personnel staff, staff confidential to the senior management group, full-time members and chairs of agencies, boards and commissions, lawyers, members of the Ontario Provincial Police and administrators of psychiatric hospitals. Those people are currently restricted. They cannot involve themselves in political activity.
Bill 117 changes this restricted group and reduces it down to deputy ministers and persons with the rank or status of deputy ministers, member of the OPS senior management group with a top-level salary range of $80,000 to $180,000, full-time heads, vice-chairs and members of ABCs, staff sergeants and other ranks serving as detachment commanders in the OPP.
I would like to just perhaps talk to you in a minute about a rather interesting article on this issue.
The main new allowable activities are: you can hold office in a political party if you're within the non-designated group now, post election signs, attend riding association meetings, canvass and solicit funds for candidates in provincial and federal elections. The current act prohibits crown employees from soliciting funds for the provincial or federal political party and canvassing on behalf of a candidate in a provincial or federal election.
The PCs really can't condone anything that compromises the public's perception of a bureaucracy which is neutral. We know that the NDP has seriously politicized the civil service and compromised its professionalism. The Ontario public service was always considered to be the envy of North America, perhaps the world, in terms of a well-trained, committed, neutral civil service.
There are not too many times that I ever compliment the Liberals, but in fairness, I must say this time the Liberals handled the transfer when they took over office in a very fair way. They made very little change to the public service. There were a few very senior public servants who they felt were perhaps too closely aligned with the previous Conservative regime, and understandably, quite frankly, they moved them out. I think that is reasonable for any government to do. It is reasonable so long as you don't bring in clearly your friends and cronies and put them in the senior levels of the civil service.
I would like to read into the record some extracts from an article called "Balancing Act." This was written by Gordon Osbaldeston and it's titled, "Political Rights and Public Service: A Balancing Act." It's from Manager's Magazine, fall 1991. I'll just read some extracts from this. It might be food for thought.
"'...that free speech or expression is not an absolute unqualified value; other values must be weighed with it. Sometimes these other values supplement and build on the value of speech. But in other situations, there is a collision. When that happens, the value of speech may be cut back if the competing value is a powerful one. Thus, for example, we have laws dealing with libel and slander, sedition and blasphemy. We also have laws imposing restrictions on'" --
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Would the members come to order.
Mr Turnbull: "'We also have laws imposing restrictions on the press in the interests of, for example, ensuring a fair trial or protecting the rights of minors or victims of sexual assaults.'
"Chief Justice Brian Dickson's words are a cogent statement of the need, on occasion, to limit the rights of individuals when the exercise of these rights impairs our capacity to safeguard other values that we cherish. The neutrality and impartiality -- real and perceived -- of any public service require loyalty, not to a particular political authority in power but to the government of Canada. The concern that public servants be seen to serve the public effectively and impartially is a legitimate one."
From a further extract, "Without clear limits prescribed by law, there may be no legal basis for dealing with unacceptable public statements or political activity on the part of public servants."
Reading a little further on, "Stating specifically which types of restriction will apply to which level in the hierarchy -- a technique already tried in other jurisdictions -- strikes me as an administrative and legal nightmare."
A couple of other portions of it: "Public servants have willingly agreed to forgo many of the rewards and benefits of the private sector in exchange for the opportunity to serve their fellow citizens.
"In politics the perception, justified or not, of disloyalty breeds paranoia. This fear that the perceived impartiality of the public service will be damaged by political activity -- whether or not it takes place -- was given substance not long ago in Saskatchewan, when the Devine government took over from the Blakeney administration. It has been estimated that over 200 Saskatchewan public servants were dismissed between April 1982 and November 1982. And, of course, for every one dismissed, five or 10 others may have suffered damage to their careers. The result of all this was the demoralization of the Saskatchewan public service -- and the cost of that was borne by the people of Saskatchewan.
"Under our system as it stands, a new government has the right to expect that the public service is impartial, neutral, competent and fair in its administrative functions. If an incoming government has cause to doubt it, it is easy to predict that it will behave as the Devine government did. Given that the Conservative government believed that the public service was seeded with NDP partisans, the blood-letting, both visible and invisible, was inevitable and understandable."
In a further section: "'No employee shall at any time, without the approval of the public service commission, make public statements, assume responsibilities or undertake any activity of a politically partisan nature that would place in question the employee's ability to perform his or her duties in a fair and impartial fashion or that might create a reasonable perception that the employee is unable to perform his or her duties in a fair and impartial fashion.'"
This is a particularly salient article and it is reasonable that when a government comes in, it will want to ensure that the bureaucracy it inherits is going to function to implement its wishes. No matter how obnoxious they may be to the opposition parties, the government has a right to expect that. But when you start appointing your cronies to the highest levels of the senior civil service, you then start pushing over the line so that it is no longer a professional, neutral civil service, and it becomes suspect and leads to the kind of inevitable and understandable "blood-letting," to quote Mr Osbaldeston, that occurred in Saskatchewan.
What better example of politicization of the Ontario public service than the appointment of David Agnew --
1810
Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): David who? Is that the guy who lives in Japan, in a house? His position has been cancelled.
Mr Turnbull: No, my friend has got the wrong name. An interesting thought, but wrong act.
David Agnew, who is the former campaign manager for the NDP in the last election, is now the most senior civil servant in this province. I think any reasonable, objective view of that decision is that it was wrong. I would suggest that any honest socialist would also agree.
Interjection: Where?
Mr Turnbull: My friend says, "Where?" I won't join that remark.
It is unreasonable to bring in the manager of the provincial NDP's election machinery and insert him into the most senior civil service appointment, because inevitably that man must go, and you to have to question all the other people he has brought in.
When we talk about the blood-letting that has occurred, we don't have a very good handle on it in Ontario. I'll tell you why, Madam Speaker. There are a lot of senior civil servants who have been dismissed with a golden handshake. We know this, but they won't put it on the record because there is a confidentiality clause in their severance agreement that they will lose their severance agreement, which is very lucrative to them, if they speak out and explain the circumstances of their dismissal and the golden handshake.
Mr Callahan: It's called a gag order.
Mr Turnbull: That is precisely a gag order, and that's what has happened in this province. We have had a huge turnover in the senior civil service. We're not talking about a few people who were just too closely aligned with the previous administration. God knows I had some troubles with the previous administration, but they, on the whole, maintained a neutral civil service. But this government comes in and goes roughshod over the civil service: Get rid of people, pay them off with taxpayers' money -- it isn't their money; it's taxpayers' money -- and put a gag order on them. Then they weed into the civil service these political hacks who will have to go no matter which party follows the present government. That is a serious problem, and it's a problem for several reasons.
You should be able to move into office and immediately start to implement your policies, but you cannot do it if you've got all kinds of political hacks in the senior positions.
The problem is that the taxpayers take it in the neck again, because once again there will be severance packages. Quite frankly, I hope they're not secret severance packages. I hope they're very public severance packages and that the public understands why this is being done. It is to ensure that we get back to the level of neutrality and professionalism that the Ontario civil service enjoyed. Its reputation was unquestionably the best in Canada, probably in North America, and it certainly had a very good reputation in worldwide terms.
The PA to the minister, Mr Cooper, said, "We believe that this objective could be met while continuing to ensure the quality, integrity and neutrality of the public service." Well, the NDP, as I've said, has eroded the quality, the integrity and the neutrality of the public service by bringing in its vile political appointments.
We know that a neutral civil service is in the best interests of the province, but we very much doubt that with this legislation we will see a neutral civil service. We will see a further erosion of what has happened. We will see senior staff being pressured into supporting this party if they think they've got any chance of retaining their job.
Do you know what? I think some of the political activity clause will come back and haunt this government, because I have a sneaking suspicion that there's an awful lot of the civil service, as a result of this document, who are going to be helping the two opposition parties. I'm not going to come down and say they're all going to help the Conservatives. I think it will probably be split. But I suspect there won't be too many people who will be helping the NDP. So your own legislation is going to come back and bite you, and I would say, gosh, you deserve it.
Just winding down, we have a government which comes forward with ill-conceived legislation, an omnibus bill which truly should be three separate packages so that we can vote on the various packages on their merits rather than just voting against it all, because our party above all believes in contributing to the political process and offering alternatives.
I would suggest that if these bills were unravelled into three separate ones, perhaps we might be voting for some of it. But I've given you an understanding of the impact on the civil service, the potential that we might have strikes in this province which can further cripple the health services, and the fact that the whistleblowing legislation is totally inadequate, because in this whistleblowing legislation it calls for the very ministry staff who have the whistle blown on them to do the investigation. You have to have some independence.
If you're going to put teeth in whistleblowing legislation, then you would allow the whistleblowing counsel to determine the merits of a case. That person should be appointed jointly by the leaders of the three parties that we have in this province to ensure neutrality, and they should be given enough power to determine how serious the charge was and whether there should be outside investigation done of the whistleblowing rather than people from within their own ministry. These are the problems with the whistleblowing legislation.
We believe that strikes are not in the public interest and we believe that the reform of the collective bargaining act is simply taking flawed legislation that this government has passed in the private sector and bringing it into the public sector, with the only difference being that they're talking about vital services. We talked about it in the past; they didn't want to know about it.
So, bad legislation with a few meritorious aspects to it, but too few to be able to weed through and do anything with it. Our party will be voting against it and we think the public should be sensitized to the fact that this government is in the process of making a huge political payback to OPSEU, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, with probably about $2 million worth of union dues that are going to be immediately forced into this union, with no choice. These people are told, "You're in the union whether you like it or not." Bad legislation. We'll be voting against it.
The Acting Speaker Further debate? Sorry: questions and comments first. Two minutes, the member for Yorkview.
1820
Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): It's not debate, is it? You're asking for questions or debate?
The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments, yes.
Mr Mammoliti: I'll deal with my comments when it's time for me to debate it.
The Acting Speaker: Are there any others who wish to have a question or comment?
Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I'm sorry to hear the member opposite won't be supporting this bill, but I can understand it because we've had conversations and there has been a fair bit of consultation on this and it's something that's been around for a number of years. A couple of things I would like to raise are some of the difficulties he seems to have with unions.
He's talking about being forced into a union. Basically, what's happening with this is the people who were traditionally excluded who are now being brought in under this legislation, yes, they will be included in the bargaining unit where they should have appropriately been, but there is a process where they can disaffiliate after one collective agreement. They aren't being forced in there for ever; it's just something that's housekeeping to try to bring them in where they traditionally belonged.
About forced union dues going to the NDP, I am sure the member opposite has seen what's happened lately in the public sector and the private sector unions, where some of them have chosen, through a democratic process when they've brought it up at a union meeting, and decided to disaffiliate. There are no forced union dues going to the NDP. It's fair and democratic and it's brought up on the floor at union meetings.
His comment about lawyers being forced to go on strike: I might remind the member that strikes in this province are fairly rare. Most collective agreements are settled, about 95% of them, through the collective bargaining process, so nobody's being forced to go on strike. Basically, what's allowed now, as a last resort, is they can withdraw their services, which is what a strike is. Rather than having an arbitrator sitting down, where he has no vested interest in the whole thing, making a decision, now you have to have responsible bargaining where the employer and the employee sit down and they do usually come to a fair settlement for the two.
As for the neutral civil service, if you take somebody like my father, who used to be a correctional officer, he used to be restricted from political activity. We still have a section on restricted employees, and I think that should take care of the neutral civil service at the top end.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Further questions or comments?
Mr Callahan: I want to say that anything that allows whistleblowing is a very worthwhile endeavour. It's unfortunate that it did not take place in terms of legislation before the New Democratic Party, the Premier in charge, had sent out the OPP, which should be probably looking after our highways and after other things, to investigate members of our party because they got plain brown envelopes through the mail. That's what democracy is all about.
I've had very fine people in the campaigns I've run and there have been many of them -- two of them unsuccessful. I happened to run against too much of a heavy, I guess, the Premier of this province. But when I won, there were people in the civil service who wanted to work for me. They wanted to put signs on their lawn and they couldn't. They were gagged. I thought to myself, in a democratic society, that's not proper really; that's unfair. These people were only getting half a loaf. They paid the taxes but they weren't given the opportunity to select the candidate or work for the candidate of their choice.
I have to say, I hope this legislation is true and will work because all the indications I've had, and my party and the third party has had, in terms of what goes on in this Legislature when a plain brown envelope shows up, immediately the OPP are dispatched to go and interview these people. If that's their idea of whistleblowing and their idea of a free and a democratic society, they have a lot to learn.
I think the people in 1995 will tell you what they want to hear, because I think you people will be absolutely decimated. Just to make sure it's on the record, because I asked Pat if she'd write it down, I told Ed Philip he's toast. I bet him $50, and I'm doing that right on the record, that he will not be back here. I will bet there will be two members back, a pair, just like in Ottawa. It will be Peter Kormos and the fellow from Hamilton. That's it. I predicted it, you heard it, Don Cherry telling you what's going to happen in 1995.
Mr Mammoliti: I can't understand how a member could stand up in here, first of all, and say he's betting against another member, and $50 -- betting money in this place -- that they're going to lose the election, yet only 45 minutes ago that same member stood up and voted opposed to casinos. I can't understand it.
As for the comment made by my wonderful friend across about political hacks, the Conservatives should talk about political hacks. I've been told in the past, and I have heard, that when the Conservatives reigned for all those years, you weren't able to get a job in the public service without talking to your MPP first, without a recommendation. I ask that member, is that true? I've been told that those glorious years of capitalism in this province were set up by a number of Tories. Is that true? I ask my good friend the member across, Mr Turnbull. Is that true? What is it?
Mr Turnbull: York Mills.
Mr Mammoliti: York Mills. Are there still some Tory hacks in the public service? They may even be stopping us from doing our job or not listening to us when we recommend any policies. I have been told that there are. Don't stand up here and talk about political hacks when your government was and still is as guilty as any other government.
The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant in questions or comments. The member for York Mills has two minutes in response.
Mr Turnbull: Just a few thoughts on my friend the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, the parliamentary assistant. We talked about forced unionization. Yes, it is true that this legislation allows to disaffiliate after one round of bargaining. My question to you is, why force them in in the first place?
I've talked to these people very extensively and they've said, "We don't want to be in OPSEU." They're saying that they did not have a very thorough, satisfying consultation process. I understand that I come from a different philosophical bent from you, and we both acknowledge it and I respect that, but the point is that societies where you force people to be in organizations are not very healthy societies.
I'd like to link my comment about not forcing people in with the question that was asked by my good friend from Yorkview. He talked about was it true that at some point you had to get a letter from the MPP to work in the civil service. George, I don't know. Quite frankly, I came to live in Canada in 1969. I haven't been involved in the political process. I don't believe that in any of the time I've lived in Canada that was the case. What happened 40 or 50 years ago, I don't know. Do you know what? I don't even care, other than to say that if it happened it was despicable.
We are seeing what happens on the east coast. When they change governments they practically change their underwear, because everybody, all of the staff, gets changed, and that's not good.
The Acting Speaker: The member's time has elapsed. Further debate?
Mr Mammoliti: All those people Mr Turnbull talked to who don't want to belong to OPSEU, if you ask them the question in terms of their benefits and all of the wonderful pensions and retroactivity and anything else, the bargaining rights and health and safety and everything else that unions bring with that membership, they would probably say that they want it all, but they don't want to belong to the union. I'm willing to bet that those people Mr Turnbull talked to would all say that. It's a shame that he didn't respond and maybe even ask the questions in terms of how they responded.
We are debating An Act to revise the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, to amend the Public Service Act and the Labour Relations Act. It's time we did that, and I'm going to go into my logic and my argument as to why. But first I want to touch on a comment that others have made in this place in terms of this government paying back the unions. It's got absolutely nothing do with paying back the unions. It has absolutely nothing to do with that whatsoever. It has to do with rights. It has to do with rights that a number of us have talked about for years and have screamed about for years in some cases.
1830
Interjections.
Mr Mammoliti: There are a couple of members who seem to respond when I say that. I say to those from the Liberal side, remember what the employees were asking you to do when you were there. I happened to be one of those employees at the time and I remember quite clearly what the responses were. Every time we knocked on one of their doors the door was slammed in our face. I believe in those rights, and it is a commitment to a degree from this government; it is a commitment to labour. We are the labour voice, we always have been and we will always will be as far as I'm concerned.
Interjection.
Mr Mammoliti: Yes, some will say that there are some problems out there. People don't agree with some of the things that we've implemented. I agree with that. There are some problems out there but we are still the commitment to labour. We are still the party for labour and we always will be.
For those who will argue that we aren't, I want to remind them about Bill 40, I want to remind them about our commitment to do away with replacement workers and I want them, especially those who are taking notes right now, to ask the Miracle Mart employees, for instance, how they feel about Bill 40 and the commitment that this government had made about Bill 40.
This Bill 117 is a commitment to labour and I don't have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with that and I will never have a problem with that. I stand in this place and I am the voice of labour; I will continue being the voice of labour. I've learned a lot. I've learned that you can't even give labour all that they want. Reality says that we have a province to run here and we need to talk about things. I've learned that. But this is still the voice for labour and it's a commitment. Bill 117 is a commitment.
The wage protection fund that this government set up is another commitment to the working person. All of those people who were laid off because their companies, their factories have shut down and moved to Buffalo or moved to some other area in North America because free trade is allowing them to do that, the $5,000 that is given to those employees was a step in the right direction. It was a commitment from this government, a commitment from the government. I don't have a problem with that. Bill 117 is another commitment to labour that I'm proud of.
Increasing the minimum wage was another commitment to labour. It was a promise that this government had made and committed to. I don't need to get into that. I can tell you there are people out there who are happy that we did that and reap the benefits of a little more money, a little more compensation for the work they're doing.
Pay equity, employment equity are all promises that this government had made and commitments to labour. I don't have a problem with commitment to labour. Bill 117 is another commitment to labour --
Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): To union bosses.
Mr Mammoliti: -- and I don't mind. I don't mind and I hear a heckle saying "union bosses." Well, it has absolutely nothing to do with union bosses. It has to do with rights. It has to do with an employee's rights, a public service employee's rights. That's what it has to do with, nothing else. They will stand up and try to confuse the issue and they will have people at home who may even believe what they're saying in terms of payoffs and union leaders and everything else, but if you really listen to what they're saying, they're only scooting around the issues, scattering all kinds of verbiage, all kinds of garbage, all kinds of things that are unbelievable. It is a commitment to labour, and I don't have a problem with that.
Bill 48, the social contract: That was for labour, and I will continue saying it's for labour. We saved 40,000 jobs. It might be quite some time before people actually realize that. When I spoke earlier about some people not agreeing with what this government has done, they're not agreeing because they just don't seem to understand at this particular time. Maybe that's my fault. Maybe that's some of our fault in terms of how we get the message across. Maybe we need to improve in terms of communication. But Bill 48 saved 40,000 jobs, and for me, that is a commitment to labour.
Algoma Steel: Was that not a commitment to labour? Jobs Ontario: Is that not a commitment to labour? All of those individuals, those construction workers, before Jobs Ontario was announced, were waiting at home by the phones for their supervisors or their foremen or their owners to phone and say: "Bill, Joe, Bob, Sam, come on down. We're ready to start a new project." They were at home by the phone waiting. The Rae government at least is giving them some hope with Jobs Ontario. That's a commitment to labour, and I don't have a problem with that.
And de Havilland: Was that not a commitment to labour? How many jobs did the Rae government save? I pose that question to future speakers. And of course the subway extension: all kinds of work that I'm hoping will bring back all of those construction workers who ultimately would have been by the phone waiting for their employers to phone and give them some hope. Jobs Ontario did that for them.
Bill 117 is a commitment to labour, and I don't have a problem with that, not one bit. The reform that Bill 117 brings in does a number of things, and it was talked about.
It extends political activity rights for crown employees. Let's talk about that for a second, because it is controversial. Should a public worker have the right to join a political party? Should that worker have the right to talk about politics? Should that worker have the right to put up political signs or hand out political literature?
The answer is yes, but the debate that has always gone on is, should they do that on company time? I don't think they should. They never have been allowed to and I don't think they ever should be allowed to. What this does, however, is give them the right to not worry about putting up a sign or to not worry about being seen canvassing for a political cause and getting fired because they're doing it, get let go because they're doing it.
The Liberals didn't want to bring this in because the Liberals knew they were never the voice of labour. They were never the party for the workers and they have never, ever committed to the needs or the wants of these types of employees. I can remember knocking on the Liberals' door as early as -- what? -- seven years ago, six years ago, and the door was always closed in my face, always slammed. Why? Why shouldn't public employees and crown employees have the right to speak politics? Why shouldn't they be able to join a party without being afraid that they're going to get fired? This Bill 117 allows them to do it.
1840
Mr Callahan: Why do you investigate every time a brown envelope comes through the door?
Mr Mammoliti: I hear the murmurs. They're getting upset, and I understand why they're getting upset. They know that they've never been the voice of labour. They know that they have never cared for the crown employee. They know that the crown employee has been asking for these changes, these amendments, for years. They know that crown employees have wanted the right to strike. They know that. They know that because they remember the rallies. They remember the committee hearings in this place just a few years ago, when we all came down here, a number of us, and talked about the changes. They remember the rallies out front. But they don't want to admit that they are not the voice for labour. The Liberals never have been the voice for labour. They pretend to care about some of the issues, but they've never been.
Mr Callahan: How dare you say that you represent the rank and file? You don't. It's the leaders who want to keep their cushy jobs; that's who you represent.
Mr Mammoliti: Mr Speaker, I hear some gurgling. I hear somebody choking.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Interjections are out of order. The member for Yorkview has the floor.
Mr Mammoliti: Civil servants have never been able to canvass. They have never been able to canvass in an election. They could never take the time at night, no matter how they felt about whatever political party. Whether they wanted to belong to the New Democrats, whether they wanted to belong to the Liberals and help the Liberals or whether they wanted to belong to the Conservatives, they were never able to do the door-knocking or the canvassing that --
Mr Callahan: I've got news for you. They did.
Mr Mammoliti: I hear a heckle saying that they did. Maybe they did, but there's some argument, with the current system and with the current piece of legislation, that it may have gotten those individuals in trouble at the workplace. They may have been fired, and there is some argument to that with the legislation the way it is now. But with the reform, they don't have to worry about getting canned. They don't have to worry about getting fired. They don't have to worry about their job. Why? Because the Rae government does care about the voice for labour and does understand that rights mean a lot to workers.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for Yorkview has the floor, very legitimately.
Mr Mammoliti: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Whistleblowing, I believe, is essential. Whistleblowing is very important to crown employees, is very important to public servants, is very important to those who know something is going on, have known for quite some time, only aren't too sure about how to get it out into the open without getting fired. Whistleblowing is important to employees who might think that if they say a little bit too much, they might end up losing their jobs. We need the whistleblowing legislation, and Bill 117 does that. It sets up a mechanism that allows employees to be able to do that without any worry.
There has been some debate in terms of how that mechanism will work and how it should work, and I'm quite willing to listen to some of that argument because I'm not too sure that it's the best possible way. My ears are open. I'd certainly like to hear a little bit more of that.
There's another question that comes into play in terms of the definition "serious government wrongdoing." Of course, the whistleblowing legislation says that they could whistleblow if they consider it as being serious government wrongdoing. The act defines that, and the definition would include violating a law or regulation, something which "represents gross mismanagement; represents an abuse of authority; or poses a grave health or safety hazard to any person or a grave environmental hazard."
Does this stuff happen in government? Does it happen in the public service? Does it happen in any jurisdiction that might be classed as a crown agency? I would bet that it does. I know that it does. When I was there, I certainly wasn't afraid of reporting wrongdoing, but there are some who are afraid and are afraid to lose their jobs.
This piece of legislation, Bill 117, will give the rights to employees that only this government can give them, because the Liberals didn't want to do it. The Liberals were never the voice for labour. They know that. I'm sure they're going to respond to that in a few minutes, and I can't wait to hear it.
The Grievance Settlement Board: The Grievance Settlement Board has worked in the past, in my opinion, with my experience at the Grievance Settlement Board tribunal. They've been fair. The only criticism I have about the Grievance Settlement Board is that it just takes too long. The process is just incredible down there. I can understand why the unions are upset at that. I can understand why crown employees are upset at that. I can understand why they would want this procedure, this type of an office, to be more of a fast track to expedite some of the grievances that even exist there at this point. That's all we were asking for when I was there.
I understand that Bill 117 brings in what some would consider drastic change in terms of closing down that office eventually and bringing it under the scope of the Ontario Labour Relations Board. From some discussions that I've had recently with some of the crown employees I know in some of those unions, I understand that they really don't mind the changes.
The costs will be shared. In the past, in terms of arbitration and the tribunal itself, the unions have never really had to worry about cost and the employer has never really had to worry about cost, because it was all covered. This legislation says: "We're going to provide a fast-track system for you, a more expedited way of doing things. However, you've got to share the costs." Again, in talking to some of these people, they don't mind doing that one bit. That's a very important item, because you will get some argument from people who say that they don't want to pay, that they've been used to the system the way it is and they want the government to continue paying for this type of system.
I've got some mixed feelings about that. I'm hoping that this might not put workers in a position where they may not have money and may have to rely on borrowing, or even just getting rid of some of the existing grievances that might be there. That will definitely hurt the grievors in some particular cases, or in a case where they're negotiating, for instance, a collective agreement and in the event that they need an arbitrator to deal with their particular problems, if they can't afford it, that might pose some problems for the workers. I don't think in this particular case the managers have anything to worry about; I think it's the workers. That's the only concern I have with that.
1850
The right to strike has always been something that employees have wanted, not because they want to strike, not because they look forward to holding pickets and stopping any sort of activity in the workplace; it's because it gives them a sense of clout, to be quite honest with you. I speak as an employee: When I was a crown employee negotiating collective agreements, I always had a problem with not being able to strike, not being able to go into a discussion and really --
Hon Allan Pilkey (Minister without Portfolio in Municipal Affairs): On equal footing.
Mr Mammoliti: On equal footing, as my colleague says. In the past with some of these crown agencies, it's been a 9-to-5 negotiation. It starts at 9 o'clock and finishes at 5. Why? Because they don't feel obligated. I don't say the unions don't, because the unions and the employees have usually wanted to stay till all hours of the night to negotiate, but the managers and the employers who were at that table didn't see the need. Why should they stay till 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning to deal with a particular collective agreement when they knew they didn't have to? "If this doesn't work, we'll always apply for arbitration. We'll always ask an arbitrator to deal with it." You tell me what clout any union would have with a set of negotiators like that.
I can remember trying to negotiate a number of collective agreements and being frustrated as hell at the people across from me. Why? Because they didn't really understand, didn't want to understand the necessity of the ongoing talks. Anybody who negotiates will know that the more you talk, in a way, the better it is. The employers who were sitting across from me certainly didn't know how the union felt, certainly didn't know how the employees felt and quite frankly didn't care.
Having said all of this, I have to say to you that the tribunal has been fair in terms of its rulings in the past and I can't deny that. The tribunal has been fair. However, again, it's a lengthy process and employees are having to wait up to eight, nine, 10, 11 months for a decision. If anybody has that experience in this place, he or she will know it could be very devastating to a family that is waiting for an increase of any kind.
I have a criticism of this piece of legislation. I think we could be taking it one step further. In terms of defining "essential services," for instance, I think there's some argument to perhaps even classifying other agencies as crown employees.
There have been some arguments in the past that the TTC drivers, for instance, should be classified as crown employees. I see the Minister of Transportation look over at me, but there has been some argument in the past. People feel that the TTC is an essential service. People feel they should be classed as crown employees. That's a suggestion I'd like to make at this time, because I think maybe there's some validity there. I think maybe they should be.
Hospital employees are another example. I've had people come up to me and ask me why they aren't, and there is some argument to that as well. University or college employees: there is some argument to that as well. There are some things that I am concerned about in this piece of legislation, and maybe we should be taking a look at defining "essential services." At this point, the definition of "essential services" is services that are necessary "to prevent danger to life, health or safety, the destruction or serious deterioration of machinery, equipment or premises, serious environmental damage, or disruption of the administration of the courts."
Who is classified as an essential servant? That's the question. Should TTC drivers be classified as an essential service? Should they be crown employees? These are all questions we need to answer. These are questions that I pose because I do have a concern with that, and it's not something that's new. I've had those concerns for quite some time now. There is some argument in terms of why LCBO employees, for instance, are classed as crown employees.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): LCBO? Look at the ad here.
Mr Mammoliti: LCBO, yes, why they are classed at this particular time as crown employees. Is that an essential service? We need to look at all this stuff. We need to redefine and that's a concern I have.
Bill 117 is a commitment to labour. In my books, it is. I have been pushing for a bill like this for a number of years. I'm glad it's here. I'm glad it's the New Democrats that have introduced 117. I'm glad that we are still the voice for labour and I'm glad that we will continue being the voice for labour. I would ask the Liberals at this point to remember the amount of door-knocking and the amount of picketing and the amount of committee work that has gone on in the past here.
A question that I pose to them is in terms of whether they feel they are even the slightest bit the voice for labour, and in this particular case they have never been, they never wanted to be and they have never listened. This government has listened. This government has sat down with these employees and has said: "What do you want? How's the best way to give it to you? Do you agree with this particular process?"
The answer from these employees and from these unions is: "Yes, this is what we want. We want the New Democratic government to do it, because the Liberals didn't want to. We're proud of the way you're doing it. Keep up the good work. You are the voice for labour. You will always be the voice for labour. Nobody else will be the voice for labour." Their track record will prove it, especially in this case when we talk about the changes to CECBA, when we talk about the whistleblowing, when we talk about any of this stuff. It's the New Democratic Party that cares for labour, and nobody else.
1900
The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?
Mr Callahan: I find it offensive when the member speaking -- I enjoyed his speech somewhat -- talks about labour only voting for the New Democratic Party. That may be the message that he gets, but I have to tell you that I have a lot of very good, hardworking labour people in my community who are friends, supporters, who didn't vote for the New Democratic Party, thank you, and I am sure they won't vote for the New Democratic Party in the next election. You people have betrayed those people with Bill 48, and they know it.
I heard Buzz Hargrove this morning on one of the --
Mr Bradley: Yes, he was on Morningside with Peter Gzowski.
Mr Callahan: Yes, and he was telling Peter Gzowski about it in no uncertain terms. He said, "Bob Rae has got to resign." He said, "The man has lost total credibility within the New Democratic Party community." So I find it really offensive when you say that the labour movement never supports any party other than the New Democratic Party. That's total hogwash.
There are people out there who are committed to paying their dues to the union which then channels them to you. They don't want to do that. In fact, they challenged it in the courts, but they lost. But the good people in my community who work in the labour movement, who are hardworking individuals, have totally lost faith even if they supported you, because you said, "Tax the rich and look after the poor." With the casino bill that you passed today, you are taxing the poor. You have totally turned around any commitment you had to any social programs. You people deserve to be turfed out of office.
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I was listening to my colleague talk about the negotiating process and the public sector union not having the availability of the opportunity of striking, and it made me think. I was reading today through the fine news clippings that are provided to us, and I see it says "Chrétien to Seek NAFTA Approval." How is Jean Chrétien going to negotiate something when he has nothing to negotiate with? It makes me say, how can you negotiate something when you have nothing? That's what my colleague was talking about today when he said there's a labour representative going in there and trying to negotiate a collective agreement and never had the availability.
I'm questioning, especially when I read in the paper where he said, "We renegotiated." I'm trying to find out what Chrétien renegotiated, because my colleague had tried to make that very clear today, that without the availability of an opportunity to strike, to remove the workforce, he had no powers, and I'm sitting here reading this column. My colleagues probably can relate to this news article that is in the paper, where Chrétien is going to try to get cabinet approval and pass the legislation for NAFTA, which will probably erode a lot of our workforce that is out there.
These are things that I know my colleagues in the public sector can relate to, and we in the private sector who have been involved with free trade and other things can relate to. I find it very interesting, and I must repeat it: How can you renegotiate something when you have nothing to negotiate with?
When my colleague stands before you and speaks of the public sector union, which I've never been a part of, having no tools to really sit down and negotiate with, I wonder how Chrétien feels when he has no tools to renegotiate NAFTA, but then is still putting it before his cabinet and before this country and saying, "NAFTA will go ahead as presented," with his renegotiated ideas that he has but nothing to negotiate with. I just pose that to my colleague and maybe he can say how Chrétien really tried to renegotiate something and he had nothing to negotiate with.
Mr Bradley: As usual, I'll keep my comments in the realm of provincial jurisdiction, to which I was elected, and keep them under two minutes because of the time limitation.
One of the things I noted that I find very amusing, of course, is the fact that the member who spoke previously mentioned all of the things that the New Democratic Party had done for those in the trade union movement. I thought he might perhaps have forgotten -- I'll help him out a bit -- that they had spent their time this session breaking strikes, which I thought was always something the NDP was very much opposed to. In fact, over the years I listened with a good deal of care to many impassioned speeches from the New Democratic Party members when they were on this side of the House and denounced successive governments for bringing in legislation which would force people to go back to work.
I think the teachers in east Parry Sound, and previous to that in the Sarnia-Lambton area, were certainly victims of a bill which was brought in by the NDP government, the government which claims to be very pro-labour, a bill which ended up breaking the strike.
I understand very well why it was done, because it had to be done in years gone by when the education of the students was in jeopardy. But on all of those occasions the New Democratic Party voted against that legislation. Now that it is the government, as I say, the NDP of principle is somewhat different from the NDP of power. I understand that, but I just find it difficult to understand how my friend who just completed his remarks is in a position then to claim that he is the spokesperson for labour, that he and his party alone are the spokespersons for labour when in fact they have abrogated contracts and in this case have ordered workers back to work. In other words, in other jurisdictions this would be called strikebreaking.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. We can accommodate one final participant. The member for Yorkview has two minutes in response.
Mr Mammoliti: First of all, I want to thank the three individuals who stood up and responded to my speech. The member for Brampton South talked about my comments in terms of labour only voting New Democrat. I never said that labour only voted New Democrat. At no time did I say that. I said that we are the only voice for workers and that the Liberals never were, the Conservatives never were, and they never will be. One day those workers, as many as they are, even some of those union leaders, will step back, they'll shake their heads and they'll say, "Yeah, New Democrats are, and their track record will prove it." That's what I said.
There are still some people who vote Liberal. I'm sorry; I have to give my condolences to those individuals. One day they will recognize who the voice for labour is and who really cares about them at work. We are, nobody else. Don't even pretend, Liberals, that you care for workers, because you don't.
I want to thank Randy Hope from Chatham for his comments. Yes, Chrétien had said in the election that NAFTA was important. He said that the airport was important to him. He said he was going to try and renegotiate all of this stuff. What's happening now? NAFTA is going to get pushed through. What does that mean for jobs here in Ontario? Exactly what it has meant in terms of free trade over the last little while. We're going to lose it. We're going to lose it to the States, we're going to lose it to Mexico, and why? Because Chrétien is a friend of labour? No. Chrétien is not a friend of labour, and neither are any of those people over there.
The member for St Catharines, thank you very much. Maybe we should class teachers as an essential service. I would probably vote in favour of classing them as crown employees. Maybe that's something we should do. Maybe we need to look at their responsibility --
The Acting Speaker: The honourable member's time has elapsed.
Mr Mammoliti: -- to their students and the parents in their communities.
Mr Bradley: I had not planned to speak at any length in this debate, but the member for Yorkview has raised a number of issues that I think are of great significance and should be canvassed in the very few remarks that I have this evening, which should allow members still time to go and watch The Simpsons at the conclusion of my remarks.
First of all, I want to deal with the issue that I think the member for Yorkview just finished with. I have always found it hard to take when members of the New Democratic Party claim to be the only spokespersons in the world for so-called -- as they would refer to people -- working people. I refer to a lot of people as working people, a broad spectrum of the population as working people, as opposed to a narrow definition.
I have found that members of all three political parties represented in this House have from time to time raised issues which are of concern to those who are members of trade union movements and those who aren't fortunate enough to be served by and represented by trade unions. I think it's unwise of members such as the member for Yorkview to suggest that only he and only his party can speak for labour.
If we look at the results -- and I'll diverge only very briefly into a federal reference because I believe we should stay with provincial reference. But the last federal election, the New Democratic Party, which is the party which features itself as the spokespeople for labour, got about 7% of the vote in my riding of St Catharines, and I think across the country somewhere around that amount. Well, the people who belong to trade unions in this country are far greater than 7% of the population, so they obviously didn't agree.
On many occasions the New Democratic Party has spoken eloquently on behalf of labour. The present Minister of Labour, when he was in opposition and even many times when he's been in government, has been an eloquent and ardent spokesperson for labour, but others in this House have spoken out on issues that are important to working people in this province, and I hope that all of us will always keep them in mind.
I prefer to think of myself as a spokesperson for individuals within my community, whether they're from labour or from business or the professions or any particular field, whether they're retired people or whether they're very young people who are not yet in the workforce. I like to think of myself as a person who speaks for those individuals in various circumstances. I have had the opportunity on many occasions to fight causes, along with other members of the House, on behalf of people who are working people in this province because I felt they were certainly deserving of that representation.
1910
I also believe that we, as members, by and large should be representatives of those who cannot easily represent themselves. There are very powerful people, there are very wealthy people within the province who certainly don't need my representation. Because of their status within the economic community and the social community, and with the levers of power they have at hand, they are certainly not as needy of my services or other members' services as others would be.
Looking at the various legislation which has come forward, I look at this as being -- I don't use the word "payback" -- almost a companion piece to Bill 48. Bill 48 was very difficult for many in the public service unions and some in the private sector unions to agree with and to accept. Why they're more genuinely angry, I guess, at the NDP government than they might have been at other governments is that they did genuinely expect that what the member for Yorkview said was true: that they could count on members in the New Democratic Party through thick and thin, through tough times and easy times, through good economic times and difficult economic times, to represent their best interests; that it would not abrogate contracts, that it would not pass back-to-work legislation, which they would call strikebreaking, that it would not impose upon the public sector policies which would result in job losses and pay and benefit losses to them.
They do feel betrayed in many cases, and that's why it's probably harder for the members in the New Democratic Party government to sustain this. I have not gone out with any particular group and raised the expectations that very difficult measures wouldn't have to be taken, but I think there was a feeling out there that the New Democratic Party would stick by them, stand shoulder to shoulder with the workers of this province in the public sector, whether we were in very difficult times or not. I think that's probably why, my analysis would be, they feel particularly betrayed in this case.
I understand the difficulty the government's going through. It is not an easy time to govern. I'm fairminded enough to say that. I may disagree with many parts of Bill 48 and some of the other things the government is doing, but I understand these are not booming economic times and sometimes some of the measures are going to be necessary. The Premier tried to defend that this morning on Morningside after Buzz Hargrove expressed, legitimately, his point of view about the performance of this government as compared to the principles on which this government was elected and for which it stood.
I must say that when I listened to Peter Gzowski after, he was certainly very fair to the Premier. He did not interrupt him and he allowed the Premier to make his case as only the Premier can: not with as much accuracy as I would like, but of course he wasn't challenged on that occasion. After all, we were dealing with the public network, the CBC, at that time, my favourite network in terms of covering political events.
I want to deal with a couple of aspects of this bill as well. One of the aspects I want to deal with is --
Interjection.
Mr Bradley: Not Murray Weppler; I'll deal with Murray Weppler later.
One of the things I wanted to deal with was that a lot of people in the public service -- and I know members of the governing side would want me to deal with this -- have said, "Well, you know, you MPPs," and they kind of put us all in the same category, "are out there imposing hardship on those of us in the public service when you indeed continue to get big raises and very good benefits." I've had to explain --
Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Six years.
Mr Bradley: The Minister of Transportation is showing six fingers; that is, six years. I recall reading the Bible on many occasions and I remember the six lean years.
Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Seven. Obviously you did not read the Bible that often.
Mr Bradley: There were more than six; there were actually seven lean years and seven good years. There were five good years at least -- that was previous to these years -- at least five years, three months and four days that were very good.
What I have explained to these people is that, yes, the government is imposing upon many people out there some real restrictions --
Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): Jim, please don't represent me. Please.
Mr Bradley: I'm speaking on behalf of Mr Owens now, who is heckling me. I know that Mr Owens and others, members of this Legislature, have had their pay frozen for six years. If you listen to the talk shows around the province, I've never heard it said that members of the Legislature in 1990, 1991 and 1992 had their pay frozen. In 1993 it was cut by 5.5% and frozen for three more years. This includes the Premier of this province; it includes cabinet ministers; it includes individual members of the Legislature. I think it's important for people to know that these restrictions have been imposed, that others have shared in that, and I'm sure a lot of people don't know that.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm thoroughly enjoying the debate that the member across the way is entertaining us with tonight, but I would like to hear some mention of Bill 117 in regard to the business before the House.
Mr Bradley: I thought the member for Cochrane South would be pleased to hear that his constituents would be able to know that he has taken a pay freeze for six years, and in the middle of that has had his pay cut by 5.5%. I thought he might want that to be known to the viewers and to be on the record.
Dealing with the bill, however, I am very interested in the whistleblowing provisions, because we're now into the fourth year of this government. It has taken the government four years -- it's in its fourth year -- to put this bill before the Legislature and to have it debated.
I have been concerned for some period of time with the government employing the OPP -- some people have said the Ontario political police. What has happened is, when there have been leaks of government documents, when people have been very concerned, for the reasons contained in this bill, about the way the government is performing, they have sent brown envelopes over to this side of the House and to the public service and to the media, who are performing a public service at all times. As a result, someone in the government -- the Premier is the boss of everything, so he must ultimately assume responsibility -- sent the OPP, sicked them on the opposition. They showed up in the office of the House leader for the opposition, Murray Elston, the MPP for Bruce, and they showed up in the member for Halton Centre's office demanding, "Where did you get these documents?"
Even the last document that escaped, the one which was associated with casino gambling, the OPP were out investigating again. How did that document get out that said that the real target of the casino in Windsor would not be the economic élite, but rather middle- and lower-income people? How did that document get out?
One thing I'm glad to see in this legislation, even though it's three years and some months too late for these circumstances, is that finally we're going to see those people protected, because they have certainly been intimidated by a government that doesn't want any of these secrets to get out to the public, that wants to keep them under wraps. So you will find my strong support for that provision of the bill which relates to the ability to whistleblow.
A second is political activity. I have one concern about political activity. I'm a bit of two minds on it. I really have thought that civil servants should not be overly restricted, that particularly the people who are not in the management end of the civil service should not be overly restricted in their ability to campaign. When I was a teacher, it certainly never stopped me from campaigning, even though I was in the public service, I guess you would say. But it never prevented me from being politically active, either municipally or federally or provincially, and I thought that was very, very useful and very, very helpful.
Hon Mr Pouliot: As a taxpayer, I want to know how long you were a teacher.
Mr Bradley: I'll give the Minister of Transportation some time later to make representations.
But I think now that this is timely, because I can think of many members of the public service who are eager to get involved in the political process at the provincial level, and I think we all know why. They have been very interested in the fact that we've had some legislation passed which has been detrimental to them. They have seen some of the activities of this government and they're eager to be able to participate in a change of government. I'm happy to see them with that opportunity to participate.
One part of it I am concerned about is the part about the civil service becoming politicized. One of the things I didn't like observing out west was that when a Conservative government or a right-wing government was tossed out of office, all the senior civil service would be cleaned out and they'd bring in all the socialists or social democrats. Then the senior civil service would change again when a new government came in.
1920
In Ontario, we have been proud to have a relatively non-partisan civil service over the years. Even when the Tories were in power, I felt that the senior echelons of the civil service and other parts of the civil service were generally non-partisan. There were some examples I could see, but at the same time I knew others who were members of other political parties or who supported other political parties.
When I saw David Agnew, the Premier's campaign manager, put in as the top civil servant and I saw some of these people coming in from out west where the NDP governments had been defeated, I thought, "I hope this government isn't trying to politicize the civil service." But certainly we have seen some evidence of that. Do you know what that means? That means that when the government changes hands, there's going to be a desire on the part of the new government to look at that civil service and say, "Are these people going to be loyal to the citizens of Ontario or are they going to be loyal to their ideology?" and they're going to want to remove them. I don't think that's really that good for government, although I'm sure many of the people will be retained.
Because we're on this whole subject of political activity, I've always felt that individuals should make contributions to political parties and people shouldn't be required by their membership in a union to make that contribution. For years, I'm sure that my father, who was a member of the CAW, made contributions to my opponents. Because you had to go through a difficult process of changing the checkoff, it wasn't ever worth it to go through that, and there was always a concern that you were going to annoy people within the union by doing that.
I certainly believe that individual members of unions have a right to and should make a choice of which party or which candidate they wish to contribute to. I think that's quite all right. I'm reluctant to see a situation where the entire union sends the money even though the majority of the members may not be in favour of that political party. I've always found that a bit difficult, but I do think they have the right individually to support political parties and individual candidates.
I heard mentioned by the member for Yorkview, and he was allowed to mention this, that there was a fund set up for workers who lost their jobs as a result of such things as bankruptcies within their place of employment. Before, where they used to be at the tail end in terms of getting the money, they were moved up considerably. There's one problem with that. My understanding, and I think it's an accurate understanding, is that this money is not being paid out any more, that in fact the fund is dry, or at least the movement of that money is taking an awful long time.
When I heard the Premier bragging about that this morning, I thought Peter Gzowski's people who do the research would be able to slide a note to him and say, "They're not paying that money out very quickly; the well is almost dry," but they didn't. I can recall being on As It Happens with Michael Enright -- it's interesting, and I think members of the House should know this -- and it was a tag-team match. This is why you always go on live, first of all. He had the headset on, and when I would give him an answer, there were two researchers, very aggressive, sitting in the corner who would say through the earphones, "What he said is not accurate or not answering your question," and then he could ask another question. Nobody did that for Peter Gzowski this morning when the Premier bragged about this fund that now has virtually no money in it, and if there is any money it's not moving quickly. I'm sure that was an oversight.
You can't set something up like that on the one hand, brag about it and then not fund it. You cannot do that. You have to fund it. But I thought it was good legislation. I supported the legislation and I commended the government for bringing forward that legislation. But there's no money in it now, so it's just on paper; it's not in practice.
Jobs Ontario he mentioned, and I will be very brief in making a reference to Jobs Ontario. Jobs Ontario essentially is a new name with a lot of old programs, and some reference was made to this yesterday. When I had the privilege of being Minister of the Environment and could be part of flowing funds to municipalities for the purpose of -- and of course I'm referring to what the member for Yorkview referred to --
Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do enjoy hearing the member across the way debate bills before this House. I would implore him to debate the bill before us, which is Bill 117.
The Acting Speaker: I know the member is close to the subject. I would like him to stay on the subject.
Mr Bradley: It's every bit as close as it was when the member for Yorkview raised it in the House, so I know you would want to be fair and allow me the opportunity to raise the same subject as the member for Yorkview, and that was Jobs Ontario.
He made the claim that Jobs Ontario was something new. Now, you have your Jobs Ontario sewers, your Jobs Ontario waste management, your Jobs Ontario water systems, Jobs Ontario roads, and all it is is the same money -- actually, it's less money going out now -- with a new name that they call Jobs Ontario, and the same with training and other things.
I don't think anybody's really buying that this is something new other than the name. Maybe Murray Weppler, who has now has been hired at up to $152,000 by the Premier to be his new spin doctor, will be able to spin that out and make people believe that it is something new and different, but I kind of doubt that's going to be the case.
I also want to look at some other issues here. Is there a by-election in Essex South today?
Mr Elston: Yes, there is.
Mr Bradley: I didn't know. The Speaker may know. I don't know that.
Mr Elston: There is a by-election there.
Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I suppose you want to stay here until after the polls close.
Mr Bradley: No, I don't. I really don't. I want to give the members of the House a chance to watch The Simpsons, which somebody told me is on at 8 o'clock tonight. I wanted to give them that chance.
Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): Who are they?
Mr Bradley: The member for Lambton says, "Who are they?" Do they have cable in your community?
Mrs MacKinnon: No.
Mr Bradley: Oh, well, that's why. Then I understand. That's very understandable. We will make sure they get cable into Lambton very soon.
Interjections.
Mr Bradley: Okay. I'm hearing all kinds of suggestions as to what might happen.
I also believe that people should have the right to join a labour union and have the union that they want to represent them. I think one of the provisions of this bill is such that it doesn't allow people the choice of the specific union they will join. They might well join the one that is suggested in the legislation; they might well join that union, but I think they should have a choice of what union they join.
I know several members here have been involved in the trade union movement. There's always a major controversy when raiding takes place, so they like to know that the individuals do have a chance to join one union or another, and they've fought for the right to have people represented by a union. Over the years, those trade unions have certainly been able to bring them some considerable benefits.
It was interesting to hear the member for Yorkview talk about the fact that the trade union movement is enamoured of the NDP. I watched the proceedings of the Ontario Federation of Labour that took place in this city, and I could hear them outside. They were banging at the door; they wanted in.
1930
They were chastised. They got back to the hall and I heard Gord Wilson chastising them for being so bold as to want to get into the House and be disruptive -- except for one thing. I remember, as the member for Carleton will, as the member for Bruce will, as the member for Brampton South will and perhaps others, watching some of the people who were chastising those for storming the bastille as they were up in the gallery shouting down at members of the House in years gone by. Some of the people who were here today may even have been part of that; I don't know that. But my friend the government House leader, who has sat in the House as long as I, would well remember those people in the gallery sometimes throwing pieces of paper down, sometimes shouting at the people below.
I was glad to see that Gord Wilson was concerned about this now, because I remember when it used to happen before. I don't remember whether he had chastised people in those days, or indeed whether he was sitting up there with those people. I don't remember that.
But there has been produced by the Ontario Liquor Boards Employees' Union a poster, and it has several members of the House on it. Some are called traitors -- that's a very strong word -- others are called heroes. There are fewer heroes than there are traitors. The heroes are Dennis Drainville, Victoria-Haliburton, now resigned; Karen Haslam, Perth; Peter Kormos, Welland-Thorold; and Mark Morrow, Wentworth East. These NDP MPPs voted to save free collective bargaining in Ontario. This is what the liquor boards employees' union believes should be shown to the people of this province.
Hon Mr Pouliot: I want to autograph this.
Mr Bradley: The Minister of Transportation has requested an opportunity to autograph it. I perhaps will allow that at some time further.
This is only the NDP members, and four are there as heroes. There wasn't room on this for the people from other parties who voted against Bill 48, but there was room for those who have stood up for NDP principles at the bottom. I just wondered if the member for Yorkview had seen this; I wanted to share it with members of the House.
I'm not one who believes we should take up all of the time available simply because we're assigned 30 minutes or limited to 30 minutes. That's why this evening I am prepared to not speak for the full 30 minutes. I want to demonstrate clearly that I believe there should be flexibility, that if there's a need to speak for 40 minutes I would speak for 40 minutes, or if there's a need for 20 minutes I would speak for 20 minutes. But Bob Rae, with the new rules he's imposed on this Legislature, now limits all members to a maximum of 30 minutes on any particular subject, and I think that's most unfortunate.
I hope that when this bill goes to committee of the whole the government will take into consideration any of the representations which have been made, will make any modifications they believe would make the bill better in any other way, will listen to the representations which have been made by various people around the province and in this House and then bring forward a piece of legislation that'll be acceptable for all.
There are many parts of this bill, some significant parts of this bill, that are supportable basically by all people in this House. There may be some parts of the bill that even government members have a little concern about, because what they're going to be in is a position of having to break strikes again.
If they were to be re-elected and this legislation were in effect, they may have to then, as they have had to with teachers, bring back-to-work legislation when certain services weren't being provided to people of Ontario. That would place the NDP in a very, very difficult position, certainly diametrically opposed to their past positions.
What they may be doing in this circumstance is setting themselves up for having to order people back to work, and that would be most unfortunate. I appreciate the opportunity to share with members of the House this evening some thoughts about this bill and other issues surrounding it. If there are other members who are going to be speaking this evening, I'll look forward to hearing from those members. Thank you very much.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Are there any questions or are there any comments?
Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I just wanted to comment briefly about the politicization of the civil service. I do think it's important to understand there are still traditionalists in this Legislature, and I have a real problem, more so now than I probably did when I first entered politics, with allowing civil servants to take a more active role in provincial politics.
I'll tell you why, Mr Speaker. It is because I have seen, in terms of the lobbying efforts of various groups that come and want changes to legislation, that want changes to funding, that it doesn't necessarily reflect what in fact the end user wants, or what the citizens of Ontario want or what is best for the citizens of Ontario. But we see on a more increasing basis that the people who come to politicians at Queen's Park are the people who provide the services or want to provide the services to the citizens of Ontario.
With the politicization of the civil service, I see that we will have an ever-increasing or a growth of this kind of lobbying industry among people who are trying to feather their own nest, people who will be trying to increase the importance of their role in providing services to the citizens of Ontario. They're not so concerned with the citizens of Ontario as they are with their promotional opportunities, the enhancement of their jobs, the enhancement of their departments etc.
I want to say that I have a very cautious approach towards the politicization of the Ontario civil service because of what I have experienced over the last 10 or 12 years vis-à-vis the increasing tendency for people lobbying politicians, not for the good of the citizens but for the good of themselves.
Mr Bisson: Just quickly, I would like to comment on Bill 117. Unfortunately, my friend from Niagara Falls didn't speak too specifically on Bill 117, but I just want to respond to a couple of things.
He made the comment about the Ontario Federation of Labour demonstration that happened here before Queen's Park last week. I would refer back to when the injured workers, as he put it, stormed the bastille. I would like to inform the member and the members of this House that the OFL at that time actually tried to prevent that from happening. I know that because I was here at the time. It's something we didn't want to happen, and unfortunately something got out of hand. They were chastised. I'd like to put that on the record.
The other thing is that I'd like to correct the record -- I'm sure an oversight of the member from Niagara Falls -- in regard to the amount of money going out for Jobs Ontario Training. The comment was that there's less money going out now towards water and sewer projects in the province of Ontario because of Jobs Ontario Training. That is just false. There is more money going out to water and sewer projects in the province of Ontario since 1990, not only because of Jobs Ontario but because of the commitment of this government, on behalf of the people of Ontario, to make sure that we have the infrastructure we need in order to operate our communities.
The other thing is that he made an interesting comment, and that was that he was not in favour of the dues dollars of union members going directly to any political party as a group. If that is the case, I would ask the member only one question: Is he in favour of banning dollars being given on the part of business or large corporations towards particular parties? Because I look at the donation lists in the last election. I know that the Liberal government at the time received many hundreds of thousands of dollars from corporations, which happen to be individual dollars from people who work there as well. I would like to hear some comment on that.
Mr Callahan: I particularly like the part of the bill about whistleblowing, but one has to have some concerns about the credibility of this government in terms of enforcing that or dealing with it fairly. I watched television last night; I think it was last night on the news. There was a civil servant who had found something very disastrous within the government. They reported it directly to the press and my recollection of that report was that they were about to be fired and there was a grievance. Nobody could talk about it because there was a grievance being filed. I may be mistaken. Maybe I heard it in the Legislature.
What they said was, and I'd like you to hear this, that there was a process set in place whereby you went to your supervisor and told your supervisor about it and your supervisor was supposed to blow the whistle. I'll tell you something: If that's the type of legislation that's here now, if that's how it reads or that's how it's going to be interpreted, there will be no civil servant in his or her right mind who will whistleblow.
I suggest to you, take a look at this poor person who tried to report something they considered to be very disastrous to our ultimate people who elect us, the taxpayers of this province, and was put down for it.
1940
Finally, maybe the OPP will finally get a rest. I said to one of my colleagues that maybe on Monday morning of next week, if this is passed and given royal assent, the civil service will be prepared to put the brown envelopes not under our door; they'll deliver them personally. I doubt it, because they feel so threatened by your government and -- I don't want to use the words "Gestapo tactics," Mr Speaker, because I know that's wrong, but tactics like that that make them fear --
The Deputy Speaker: I would just ask you to correct yourself.
Mr Callahan: I'll take "Gestapo" out. The dictatorial or -- what were some of the others? -- draconian measures that are used, because they hear the boots stomping down to their office when they do these things for the benefit of the taxpayers of this province.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I just want to make a couple of comments, firstly about the union dues. You have no choice. Your union dues, if you work in a union and there is that checkoff component in place, regardless of your political affiliation and what you believe and don't believe -- I don't like it either -- your money goes to the NDP. Case closed. The only way you can stop your money from going to the NDP, and it's been right to the Supreme Court of Canada, is you've got to quit your job to stop supporting the NDP government or the NDP party.
The argument was made about the private sector. If I own shares in a company and those shares are making donations to political parties I don't agree with, what I have to do at that point is sell my shares if I don't agree with that. It is far, far less onerous on me to sell my shares than to quit my job and go out and look for a new one. Those companies operate in the private sector in the private world. If I don't like what they're doing and I have shares, I sell my shares. That's a big, big difference between taking money out of my pay packet that I'm not spending discretionally and giving it to the NDP.
Second, capital projects: Capital spending is down by $300 million this year. I don't care what he says. They took the $300 million and plowed it into Jobs Ontario. They're spending no more money on capital than they were in previous years and they're trying to claim they are.
Finally, I know everyone in this Legislature, mostly everyone, is in favour of whistleblowing legislation. I'm not. I think whistleblowing legislation is very dangerous. It has to be handled very carefully, and I don't think this legislation handles it in that fashion. You will see, just like the other day when whistleblowing legislation was dealt with with an employee, that it's very dangerous. There's confidentiality involved in a lot of these issues, and I'm not a fan of whistleblowing, whether I'm in government or in opposition.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for St Catharines, you have two minutes to reply.
Mr Bradley: It's always interesting to hear the member for Etobicoke West taking a different point of view than most of us on that and making a rather interesting argument, one that should be considered at least, because I guess it does have some ramifications.
I wanted to respond a bit to the member for Cochrane South, who may have misinterpreted what I said. I didn't relate one to the other. Jobs Ontario funding for the purpose of sewer and water is down from what it used to be. The government of Ontario used to give a lot more. It has nothing to do with training or anything like that. That's not because they're giving it to training.
The capital in the Ministry of Environment I know is down. I was amused when the Premier made that announcement, because what he made was a three-year announcement, and a three-year announcement equalled about what it was in one year of the previous government. I understand why, but what I'm saying is that this claim is that it's brand-new money and a lot more money.
This government cut $300 million out of its capital budget at the same time as the Premier features himself as Captain Infrastructure. Again, I understand that, but he can't have it both ways. He can't be Captain Infrastructure and be slashing the budget at the same time.
I want to say as well that I found interesting the member for Carleton's remarks about special-interest groups lobbying, because, again, listening to the Morningside program, I heard the Premier lamenting the fact that the nurses had received some significant increases in pay. I'm sorry, I remember during the election campaign the Premier telling them: "Go to it. You deserve a lot more money." Indeed, he was right, except his government did not provide that money so that those increases could be paid. As a result, we have unemployment even in that field.
ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Before I recognize the next speaker, please allow me to make the following statement. I'd like to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, His Honour the Administrator has been pleased to assent to certain bills in his office.
Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex McFedries): The following are the titles of the bills to which His Honour has assented:
Bill 8, An Act to provide for the control of casinos through the establishment of the Ontario Casino Corporation and to provide for certain other matters related to casinos / Projet de loi 8, Loi prévoyant la réglementation des casinos par la création de la Société des casinos de l'Ontario et traitant de certaines autres questions relatives aux casinos
Bill 40, An Act to stimulate Economic Development through the Creation of Community Economic Development Corporations and through certain amendments to the Education Act, the Municipal Act, the Planning Act and the Parkway Belt Planning and Development Act / Projet de loi 40, Loi visant à stimuler le développement économique grâce à la création de sociétés de développement économique communautaire et à certaines modifications apportées à la Loi sur l'éducation, à la Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire et à la Loi sur la planification et l'aménagement d'une ceinture de promenade
Bill 115, An Act to confirm and correct the Statutes of Ontario as revised by the Statute Revision Commissioners / Projet de loi 115, Loi confirmant et corrigeant les Lois de l'Ontario refondues par les commissaires à la refonte des lois.
PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA FONCTION PUBLIQUE ET LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 117, An Act to revise the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, to amend the Public Service Act and the Labour Relations Act and to make related amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 117, Loi révisant la Loi sur la négociation collective des employés de la Couronne, modifiant la Loi sur la fonction publique et la Loi sur les relations de travail et apportant des modifications connexes à d'autres lois.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Carleton.
Mr Sterling: I just want to briefly discuss the whistleblowing section of this act. As you know, I've been involved in the freedom of information and privacy issue in this Legislature for some period of time, and in fact, as a former minister of a previous government, had responsibility for that legislation during that mandate.
When I look at the whistleblowing section of this act, I find it completely impractical in terms of doing anything which is of any use to anybody. In order for a civil servant to be able to say, "I've got to produce some information," the act says that first of all there must be a serious government wrongdoing as defined in this act. In order for the civil servant to decide whether or not this is a serious wrongdoing in this act, he then goes to a specially appointed counsel for the purpose of determining whether he may reveal this serious government wrongdoing and determining what steps can be taken to bring information to the attention of the public.
I want all members to know that in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, a section which I included in that act, which was followed up by the subsequent Liberal government, was a section which required the government, under law -- it had a legal duty -- to propagate or produce or publish information which was a serious hazard to the public.
So there is already a duty on the government, on all cabinet ministers, on all civil servants, if they come across a piece of information which they think may harm a member of the public, a positive duty on the government of Ontario to produce that piece of information. If it does not produce that piece of information, then the government can be sued. In other words, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which was passed in 1985 or 1986, already provides a positive obligation on the government to produce information where someone in our society could be injured therefrom.
This so-called whistleblowing section does not provide any new kind of information for the client or the citizen of Ontario. Furthermore, the idea that a civil servant who had information in his or her hands which she or he thought might be useful in terms of bringing forward a very serious problem to the public's attention -- would that person go to an independent counsel who is paid by the Ontario government and be concerned about the confidentiality between that counsel and other members of the government as to whether or not their bringing forward this piece of information, getting it checked over by counsel -- would they not be concerned about their own job?
1950
Quite frankly, this whistleblowing section, I would submit, will not be used in the next 10 years. If the government wants to hire me as its special counsel on a retainer, I would be most pleased to do that, because I wouldn't expect that I would have any work to do. I don't expect that there would be one civil servant who had one iota of grey matter who would ever come to this counsel appointed under this act. You've got to be pretty naïve to think that you would come in front of a government-appointed counsel and say, "Mr Counsel, is this serious enough for me to be able to go out and whistleblow?" Give me a break. A civil servant who has a serious concern about information does various things with that information now. They either go to the opposition and the opposition looks at that information and says, "Yes, this is serious" or "This is not serious" and raises a public profile, or another avenue for the civil servant is to go to the newspaper and the newspaper goes to its publisher and says, "This is serious information and we should produce it."
I think the present system works adequately. By the creation of a special counsel and the idea that we're going to have to pay a special counsel -- in very serious times in terms of whom we can pay, should we be creating new jobs, new positions, which are going to be ineffectual? I believe this will be another waste of money, another waste on the part of the government in terms of what it would do in the future, and quite frankly I think the whistleblowing provisions in this act are a joke.
We cannot support this act for these provisions, we cannot support it for other provisions, and therefore I think that if the government is serious in its concerns about the fiscal situation of this government, it should withdraw provisions like this. They should stop creating useless jobs. They should stop creating new programs to spend more money to create bigger deficits that everybody's concerned about. That's what this bill is about. It's a small amount but I guess those small amounts add up.
The whistleblowing protection sections of this bill will be used rarely, if ever. All they do is create additional expense for the poor taxpayer of Ontario.
Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I disagree with the member, especially when it comes to whistleblowing, because I think that's a good provision of the bill. Any time we can get at waste anywhere in any public service is a good thing, because fundamentally to save the taxpayer some money, to make the system more efficient, is what this should be all about. I believe that whistleblowing opens the door for enormous tax savings and is a good thing.
Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'm sure the member for Bruce won't be too upset with the few comments that I would like to make. I do appreciate the opportunity to enter this debate even briefly, partly because of the direct involvement that I had the opportunity to have in a number of pieces of the legislation that are before us when I was Chair of Management Board. I know it's taken both a lot of hard work by a number of people -- certainly a number of ministers, but a number of people -- to bring together this legislation, which I think is one of the most significant pieces of legislation we've seen for some time.
I believe, as others have described the various pieces of this, that we acknowledge very much the importance of this legislation, whether it's the part that deals with whistleblower protection, whether it's the part that deals with the recognition and extension of political activity rights for members of the public service or whether it's the changes that are made to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. I would just like very briefly to touch upon those three areas.
I was quite interested in hearing the comments from the member for Carleton a little while ago in terms of his assessment of the impact that he believes parts of the whistleblower legislation will have. I guess I would say that I hope he doesn't end up being right on this, because I think what has been attempted here is to put together a framework that provides the kinds of protection that don't exist now to civil servants who feel there is serious wrongdoing, as is described in the legislation, which can be any number of things, and that provides protection for them and provides a vehicle for them to speak with someone in a very confidential way and to get some advice about how they should proceed in dealing with and disclosing that information.
There's nothing in the legislation, of course, that prevents in future what exists now in terms of people making the decision to simply brown-bag any particular piece of information. They can continue to do that if they wish, but obviously, in doing so, they then have to take whatever responsibilities come from that. What the provisions in this legislation do is provide a very sound vehicle whereby members of the civil service who feel that some element of wrongdoing is going on in the government can proceed to have that verified, vetted by an independent counsel who will give them that kind of advice and will seek from the relevant ministry or government body information that will allow that issue to be addressed and sorted out and will provide the individual civil servant with some sound advice on how to deal with that issue. I think that's a significant step forward that should not be ignored.
Secondly, the whole area of political activity rights: I think it's important, again, that we recognize what this legislation does. I was happy to hear the comments from the member for St Catharines earlier on this, expressing his support for this part of the legislation at least. I think what we are doing for the first time is setting out in a very clear way the fact that we believe that members of the civil service ought to have recognized basic rights that all of us as citizens of this province enjoy and be able to carry out those rights, and that there should only be exceptions to that general rule in very limited circumstances, such as in the very senior ranks of the civil service. Even then, there are provisions in the bill that outline in effect the kinds of rights and responsibilities that those members of the civil service can also exercise, albeit under certain restrictions. Again, I think the basic premise of that part of the legislation is to say that just because one is a civil servant, one ought not to have denied to one the basic rights that all of us want to enjoy in terms of participating in the political process of this province.
Thirdly and lastly, let me also say that I believe the changes which are reflected in this legislation that will be changes to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act reflect a discussion that I know has been going on for many, many years around changes to that particular piece of legislation governing, in effect, those who work for the civil service, those who work for the government, and therefore the issue around bargaining units.
Without getting into all of the details, let me just say that I believe what's reflected in this legislation is not just the result of long discussions that involve, yes, the major union that now represents most of the people who work in the public service, all of the employee associations, and in fact sets out a framework which allows, I think, for the ongoing question of representation in the civil service of this province to be addressed in both a simpler way than exists now and in a way that continues to respect the rights of every individual employee to determine, by and large, how they should be represented in collective bargaining with the government of Ontario.
I think all of those pieces, taken together and presented in the way they are in this bill, amount to a significant step forward with respect to the way in which we treat the civil service of this province, a civil service which continues to do a terrific job and which all of us, whether in government or in opposition, need to continue to acknowledge in very many ways. I think this legislation acknowledges in a very real way the significance that we place and the importance that we place on the work that is done by the civil service in this province.
The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions or comments? If not, the parliamentary assistant.
Mr Cooper: I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all members who participated in the second reading debate on Bill 117. While I realize there were some reservations and some ideological or philosophical differences expressed during the debate, I'm sure Bill 117 goes a long way to addressing some of the concerns that have been out there in the public service for a long time.
At this time, I'd like to welcome everybody for their further input during the committee process and at third reading.
The Deputy Speaker: Mr Cooper has moved second reading of Bill 117, An Act to revise the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, to amend the Public Service Act and the Labour Relations Act and to make related amendments to other Acts. 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 will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.
Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Committee of the whole House, Mr Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I think we reached an agreement earlier that we would adjourn the House at the end of this debate, but first I would like to take a moment to set out the business for the first part of next week. Pursuant to standing order 55, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the week of December 6.
On Monday, December 6, we will consider the following items in order: second reading of Bill 122, graduated licensing; second reading of Bill 121, Teachers' Pension Act, and second reading of Bill 120, the residents' rights omnibus bill.
Government orders for the remainder of the week will be announced pending further discussions with my colleagues in the opposition parties.
On the morning of Thursday, December 9, during the time reserved for private members' public business, we will consider ballot item number 41, a resolution standing in the name of Mr Eddy, and ballot item number 42, a resolution standing in the name of Mr Wilson.
I move the adjournment of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Charlton moves the adjournment of the House. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
This House stands adjourned until Monday at 1:30 of the clock. Monday is December 6.
The House adjourned at 2003.