Journal des débats 1988-nov-29 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Miss Martel: Recently I met with the director and a board member of the Sudbury Community Legal Clinic regarding funding of clinics in Ontario. As a consequence of this discussion, I would like to raise two concerns.

The amount of funding provided to the clinic funding committee in October 1988 was almost $3 million short of the amount requested. While the approved budget did incorporate a five per cent increase over 1987 expenditures, it did not include some $583,000 needed to operate the six new clinics for a full 12 months. Funds to cover the shortfall will come from two sources, cash savings and surplus funds already held by the clinics. Thus, an already difficult situation will be exacerbated, and this can only be to the detriment of the entire clinic system.

The greater concern is that after this initial hurdle, the clinic funding committee will still be faced with the need to obtain additional funding by April 1989 in order to avoid further cost-saving measures. The measures can only result in a loss of clinic staff positions or legal clinics themselves, as the funding committee struggles to make ends meet. This cannot be allowed to happen in view of the important work being carried on by clinics in Ontario on behalf of those least able to help themselves.

Second, the government must commit itself to completing the legal clinic system in Ontario. Clinics already established have demonstrated the need for poverty law services for low-income individuals. There remain significant gaps in the services provided, and more resources are needed to ensure that comprehensive services are available to the most needy in our society. Some 20 regions in the province still lack a community legal clinic. The government must commit itself to funding new centres in these areas over the next five years.

HOME CARE

Mr Villeneuve: Members here will be aware that I have raised several issues concerning the wellbeing of senior citizens in eastern Ontario and particularly those in the riding I represent.

Today I want to mention not the Liberal government’s neglect of seniors’ housing but the integrated homemaker program. The Liberal government refers to programs which enable people to stay out of institutions, and I quote its statement, as “the cornerstone of social programs.” Indeed, this government has referred to the integrated homemaker program itself as the cornerstone of community support programs for seniors in rural and small-town Ontario. Knowing how this government operates, what comes next is inevitable. The cornerstone is being weakened.

The Eastern Ontario Health Unit has been told to cut back on costs and the number of people served under its integrated homemaker service. Some 727 people are currently being helped under the program in eastern Ontario and in the riding I represent. The health unit knows it cannot justify cutting back on the number of people served. However, if it challenges the funding restrictions, the government may react as it did against one well-known person, John Sewell.

I and my colleagues hope, therefore, that this government will actually try to live up to the lipservice it has paid to this most important cornerstone program and provide needed support to those people in rural Ontario.

AIR QUALITY

Mr. Laughren: On June 7, 1988, I wrote a letter to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) concerning the fact that in the Sudbury area, when the weather is cold and windy, the tailings from Inco’s smelter operations blow over the surrounding area and into the lakes, the streams and the vegetation and into people’s homes.

Every time I write to the minister about it I get nothing but clichés of concern back from him, so in June I wrote him another letter and asked at the end of that letter if I could have a decent response, not simply an apology for Inco. The minister did not respond at that time, but his office indicated to me that they would try to respond to me. That was two weeks ago, and it is going back to a letter from June 7.

Now, it seems to me that when the regional municipality of Sudbury spends a lot of money trying to dispel the myths about the environment in Sudbury, the Minister of the Environment has an obligation to help it dispel some of the reality of Sudbury, namely, the blowing tailings.

When tourists driving through the Sudbury area have to turn on their headlights to drive along the Trans-Canada Highway because of the blowing tailings, you can imagine what kind of message that gives to tourists from other parts of Ontario and, indeed, Canada. So it is time that the minister responded with a decent response as to what kind of action he intends to take.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mrs. Cunningham: On September 6, 1988, the Social Assistance Review Committee released its report, Transitions. It has been three months and we have not heard an overall response to the report, nor have we seen the implementation of any of the urgent recommendations.

It was the intent of George Thomson to have the government respond to the overall report within six months of its release. We all know that it was not his intent to have no action on the report for a six-month period. In fact, he recommended that the government implement a number of urgent changes, including immediate increases in benefit levels and more adequate shelter subsidies within one year of the report’s release. The committee felt that movement on these issues within one year would not create any unintended problems as long as the overall first stage of reforms is completed within the one-year period.

Yesterday the minister stated that his announcement of increased welfare rates would probably just match inflation and that the large amounts of money would not be available until the spring budget. This government knew a year ago that the Thomson report was scheduled to be released this fall. Money should have been set aside from last year’s budget for the sole purpose of implementing those urgent recommendations, recommendations that the government must have realized would emerge from such a complicated report. He could be cutting back within his own bureaucracy to ensure that these recommendations are implemented.

ELECTION FINANCES

Mr Tatham: Last week, during a tepid question period, I asked the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) a question. Now I have a statement. Damon Runyon said, “The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong -- but that’s the way to bet.”

Legislation imposes strict accounting for party and members’ election expenses. Is there not a fine line between freedom of expression and third-party spending at election time?

Might and Right were always fighting,

In our youth, it seems exciting.

Right is always nearly winning,

Might can hardly keep from grinning.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr. Breaugh: I want to announce today the coming of the GO train to Whitby. I know the minister will probably make more of an announcement a little later on, but it actually has arrived. It has been there on at least two occasions so far this week. Next week it begins its regular runs, and when the politicians are through cutting the ribbons and sweeping off the sidewalks, then the people will actually get a chance, finally, to use the GO train from Whitby into Toronto. Once the minister gets that simple job done, there is just one more thing that has to be done. He has to bring it a little further east, right out into Oshawa.

1340

PALLIATIVE CARE

Mr. Faubert: Residents from my riding and throughout the city of Scarborough have expressed to me the need to increase services to those in need of palliative care. The prospect of a community-based palliative care program in the city of Scarborough is an issue that is appealing to both the mind and the heart.

It is estimated that 70 per cent of palliative care patients would prefer to remain with their families in the familiar surroundings of their own home as long as possible. However, due to the difficulties of obtaining professional, effective and timely assistance in the home, 90 per cent of patients are admitted to hospital earlier than necessary. This is a burden on both the patients themselves and on the taxpayers.

The establishment of a community-based palliative care program would extend specialized palliative care skills and expertise into the community, enabling more patients to stay at home for a longer period of time. This would be more cost-efficient in financial terms and more spiritually effective in human terms, as the patients would spend more of their precious last days in familiar and comfortable surroundings.

I am pleased that this government is moving towards a more community-based health care system.

I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of the North Scarborough Rotary Club and Scarborough television which are holding an auction on the Scarborough cable station this Friday and Saturday, December 2 and 3, to assist Scarborough General Hospital in its efforts to establish a palliative care outreach team in Scarborough

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SCHOOL DRINKING WATER

Hon. Mr. Ward: I am today releasing the results of the first 10 tests conducted by the Ministry of the Environment on samples of drinking water taken from water fountains at elementary schools in the greater Toronto region.

The results indicate that the practice of flushing the water system for a period of five minutes reduces the level of soluble lead in the sample to below the allowable limit of 50 parts per billion.

Yesterday, my ministry recommended to school boards that drinking water sources in all Ontario schools be flushed for at least five minutes each morning before students and staff arrive. This practice will continue.

Samples taken from a further 10 schools are being analysed now by the Ministry of the Environment, and I expect to be able to release the results of those tests later today.

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES / RÉSSOURCES NATURELLES DE LA REGION DE TEMAGAMI

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Members will be aware of the ongoing efforts of the government to resolve a number of issues in the Temagami area. These include the construction of certain logging roads; the land claim of the Teme-Augama Anishnabai, known as TAA; concerns about forest management practices, and the ongoing viability of the Milne lumber company.

We have already taken a number of significant initiatives in order to pursue the following objectives. First, we want to ensure long-term economic viability for the community of Temagami. Second, we wish to see a fair and practical resolution of the land claim. Third, we recognize the environmental significance of the Temagami area.

We believe these matters have to be resolved through a spirit of co-operation and compromise among the various individuals and groups who have a stake in how this land will be used, for living, working and recreation.

For more than a century, native and non-native residents and visitors have coexisted in the Temagami region. The mainstay of the economy is the logging industry, which has been in active operation for more than 80 years. In the town of Temagami itself, the major employer is William Milne and Sons Ltd. Other forest products companies harvest in the area as well. The region has also traditionally provided outstanding outdoor recreational opportunities.

In 1973, the TAA asserted a land claim to some 10,000 square kilometres in the Temagami area. In 1984, this matter reached the Supreme Court of Ontario, which ruled that there was in fact no valid land claim. An appeal of this ruling by the TAA is due to be heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal in January.

In 1986, this government attempted to settle this claim. We offered the TAA a settlement totalling $30 million in land, money and other considerations, including self-government arrangements. The band rejected this offer and decided instead to proceed with its appeal.

While my colleague the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) will shortly speak to the native land claim issue, I would like to focus for a moment on the concerns about recreational and wilderness values of the area.

The Ministry of Natural Resources has been involved for more than a decade in working with area residents, tourist operators, environmental and other groups to manage and to protect the area through the Lake Temagami plan for land use and recreational development. This was accomplished with the help of a citizens’ advisory committee.

In 1983, the ministry created Lake Evelyn-Smoothwater Park as a 72,000-hectare wilderness area. Last May, this government took additional initiatives to preserve wilderness and recreational values with the creation of two new waterway parks in the area and placed additional restrictions on the uses permitted in provincial parks.

The Ministry of Natural Resources maintained a process of open planning and public consultation with respect to the use of the area outside the park. In 1983, it produced a timber management and operating plan for the Temagami unit which included proposals for access roads. These roads were necessary to provide access to alternative areas because the creation of the park had removed timber areas available to local forest companies.

In order to ensure that logging and other land use activities would be undertaken in an environmentally sensitive way, the government established the Temagami Area Working Group with representation from a broad range of those interested in the area. The TAA was asked to participate but declined to do so. The government accepted the working group’s recommendations, including the creation of a council to oversee logging and other resource-related activities in the region. This body, the Temagami Advisory Council, has been created and has already had several meetings. It is playing an important role in advising the government on ways in which to manage area resources on a sustainable basis.

Let me now turn to the Milne lumber company. This company, which has been in operation for more than 60 years, employs about 150 people at its mill in Temagami. For some years, Milne has been experiencing financial difficulties. At no time, however, has the company been without a wood supply.

This government has assisted the company by taking the following steps. In March 1988, the Northern Ontario Development Corp. approved a loan guarantee of $750,000. In September, the industrial restructuring commissioner was asked to determine under what circumstances a viable sawmill could be maintained. A preliminary report from the Centre de recherche industrielle du Québec will be ready soon.

The commissioner has also had extensive meetings with the mill management, the mill workers’ committee and others in the community. Despite these efforts, the Bank of Nova Scotia has indicated that it intends to demand repayment of its loan this Thursday. It is not known at this stage whether the bank’s action will result in a shutdown of the mill. The industrial restructuring commissioner and the company are meeting with the bank today in an effort to get it to delay this action and to co-operate in evaluating the longer-run potential of the mill.

I would now like to turn to the Red Squirrel Road and the issue of other logging roads in the area. The Red Squirrel Road was begun 30 years ago and is now 55 kilometres long. The proposed 15-kilometre extension of this road is necessary to allow Milne access to wood supplies in the next decade. The road will also provide access to timber for Liskeard Lumber Ltd., Grant Forest Products and Rexwood Products Ltd. to support their operations later in the 1990s.

This road was the subject of an environmental assessment which included public consultation. The assessment was accepted in the spring of this year by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), with road construction subject to a series of conditions. Before work could begin on the extension of the road, the TAA announced that it had blockaded the right of way. Meanwhile, the Temagami Wilderness Society filed for judicial review of the decision not to hold a hearing.

Given these events, and in close consultation with the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) and the minister responsible for native affairs (Mr. Scott), I instructed the native affairs co-ordinator of my ministry to work with Chief Gary Potts and the TAA band executive on a forest management and access road policy in the area that would be acceptable to the native people.

This led to a proposal for a new body to be called the Wakimika Stewardship Council. The council will be empowered to make decisions regarding timber management in the area of approximately 500 square kilometres in and around the lands to be accessed by the Red Squirrel, Goulard and Liskeard road extensions. The council will have an independent chairman acceptable to the band and four members representing the natives, the local community, the forest products industry and the tourist industry.

1350

During these discussions it was made clear that the council proposal was being advanced independently of any land claim considerations and consistent with the government’s multiple-use policy. The council will have to develop and approve an interim management plan pertaining to road access.

Earlier this month, Chief Potts advised us that the band had rejected the proposal in favour of a body where decisions were made on the basis of equal representation between the band and the province, excluding participation by other parties. In addition, the land area under its jurisdiction should be related to the full land claim area.

With respect to the interim plan and the construction of another access road, the Goulard Road, Chief Potts indicated that the band would block construction of the road if talks failed. Any threat to block another road cannot be tolerated, and we are therefore compelled to take action in this regard.

On behalf of the government, I am today indicating that this counterproposal is unsatisfactory because, in essence, it reasserts their land claim to over 10,000 square kilometres. Our discussions over the summer and fall were intended to find an interim solution for the Wakimika area, as it was considered to be the heartland of the band’s concerns. The discussions were not seen by either side as an attempt to settle the land claim.

I believe that the proposal put forward by the province for the Wakimika Stewardship Council represents a co-operative approach to meeting the legitimate interests of all groups in this area. It is our intention to continue discussing options with the band to see if we cannot find a resolution. Chief Potts has been advised of our position in a letter that is appended to this statement.

As we have said before, we are prepared to resume negotiations on the land claim when the blockade ends.

The uncertainty of this situation has caused a difficult period for the Temagami community.

There has already been a significant delay in the beginning of construction of the Red Squirrel Road. To compensate for this, the Ministry of Natural Resources had made other short-term supplies available to the mill and intends to do so until the road is ready for use. This will require some extraordinary measures, including the amendment of certain timber management plans.

With respect to the Red Squirrel Road extension itself, I am reaffirming on behalf of the government the decision to proceed with construction. I am also reaffirming our policies with respect to other access roads.

To be more specific, I want to reaffirm our intention to allow the Goulard Road to proceed on schedule. The wood supply accessed by this road is vital to the future of the Goulard Lumber Ltd., which makes an important contribution to the economy of the region. The need for the road and its location have been reviewed by the Temagami Advisory Council, and that group has confirmed its importance; the suggestions they made to mitigate the impact of the road have been accepted. In addition, every attempt will be made to accommodate the concerns about the river crossings expressed by TAA members. We cannot, however, accept the right of the TAA to blockade the road.

We believe that the forest industry continues to be the cornerstone to the economic future of the Temagami area. A number of legal steps, to be outlined shortly by the Attorney General, may be necessary to give effect to our policies.

Other initiatives related to diversification are also necessary to help ensure long-term economic stability in the Temagami area.

My own ministry is actively working with residents of the community to establish a municipal economic development agency, and we have committed $1 million over five years to fund it.

The Ministry of Tourism and Recreation has established a task force to identify public and private sector tourism initiatives that could be undertaken.

Also, as chairman of the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Board, I intend to recommend to the other board members that a special development fund be set aside to finance long-term job creation initiatives in Temagami.

We have also asked the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission, a major land owner in the town of Temagami, to identify economic development opportunities which it could support.

It is our policy to manage the province’s resources in a spirit of consultation and constructive compromise. I hope that we will be able to work with all of those with interests in the Temagami area in that spirit.

Nous tâcherons de poursuivre notre travail dans un esprit de collaboration. C’est un principe sur lequel nous avons fondé les politiques que nous énonçons aujourd’hui. Nous nous engageons à maintenir des pourparlers ouverts, honnêtes et justes pour toutes les parties intéressées.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) has announced a series of initiatives for the Lake Temagami area. The government believes that those initiatives are in the interests of all Canadians who live in the province. However, let me spend just a moment reviewing the history of the land claim and outlining what will next transpire.

The Robinson-Huron Treaty was negotiated and signed at Sault Ste. Marie in 1850. Well after the signing, some Temagami Indians began to advance the claim, first to the government of the province of Canada and then, after Confederation, to the federal and provincial governments, that they had not received their entitlements either as to land or to the annual payments provided for in the treaty itself.

In the 1880s, Canada agreed to provide a reserve. By that time, however, Canada could no longer meet its obligation, for the British North America Act had allocated the lands to the stewardship of the government of Ontario. For its part, Ontario did not make any land available to the Teme-Augama Anishnabai until 1941.

The present reserve at Bear Island, which is less than 2.5 square kilometres, is far smaller than the 125 square kilometres contemplated by the federal government. Trying to settle the claim by negotiation was at the root of our offer, the first in Ontario history, made in 1986.

Our offer was not just one of cash. It was more than that. It provided the TAA with the capacity to choose a combination of a larger land base, approximately 250 square kilometres; the financing of new programs; the establishing of new methods for land management on a co-operative basis; and the provision of additional financial resources. It also, and most important to me, contained the elements for a self-government agreement.

We believed then and we believe now that our offer, on behalf of all the people of Ontario, was fair and practical. It would have gone a substantial way in addressing the historic grievances of the past.

The TAA land claim covers an area of 10,000 square kilometres. The TAA believed the appeal of the land claim had to proceed in the courts and rejected our offer. Consequently, negotiations ceased. We respect but very much regret their decision.

We also regret that after protracted discussions, our offer regarding the Wakimika Stewardship Council to the TAA was not acceptable as a basis for discussion and was also rejected. Nevertheless, we remain prepared to continue to discuss different proposals for that area.

But now, for all the people of the region, the future is marked by an unacceptable degree of uncertainty, causing hardship to many, white and native alike.

The Minister of Northern Development has described the importance of the Goulard Road to the economic wellbeing of the Lake Temagami region. Therefore, we have notified the counsel for the TAA that, as part of the Bear Island land claims appeal, which begins within a month, we will be applying for an injunction preventing the TAA from blockading the Goulard Road, as they have now threatened to do. Further, we will be asking the court to order the end of the blockade by the TAA of the Red Squirrel Road extension. We have requested that the motion be heard as quickly as possible.

The government of Ontario, I believe in good faith, has endeavoured to bring about a resolution of these difficult, protracted and complex matters in a way that would best meet the needs of all Ontarians. We remain prepared to continue meeting at any time and at any place to talk with all interested parties, in the hope and with the prayer that a fair and lasting resolution will finally emerge for all the people who live in the Temagami region.

1400

RESPONSES

SCHOOL DRINKING WATER

Mrs. Grier: The announcement today by the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) has two major problems. The first one is that this government is still dealing only with schools when it comes to lead in drinking water. It is obvious from the nature of the problem that this exists wherever there are lead-soldered pipes. The recommendation that pipes be flushed out for five minutes ought to be widely issued and used by everyone, especially everyone living in a building less than five years old.

The second major problem is the allowable limit of 50 parts per billion that is being quoted. This standard is grossly out of date. We do not have standards in this province. We have a guideline and this is a federal guideline.

It was in 1986 that the United States Environmental Protection Agency recommended dropping the standard there to 20 parts per billion. Now new health evidence has the Environmental Protection Agency recommending five parts per billion.

Fifty parts per billion is far too high a guideline. The ministry and the government as a whole ought to be looking at reducing that significantly and implementing standards.

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

Mr. Wildman: I must express our disappointment at the announcements today by the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). It is obvious that the government has taken this out of the hands of the Ministry of Natural Resources completely, particularly since yesterday the minister himself indicated that there probably would not be any statements in the near future on this issue and that the matter was out of his hands.

In his statement, the Minister of Northern Development indicated that the government was attempting to meet three objectives: (1) the long-term economic viability of the community of Temagami, which the industrial restructuring commissioner is looking into; (2) the settlement of the land claim; and (3) the environmental protection in the area.

In these statements there is nothing about protection of the environment, except a reference to the completely discredited, limited environmental assessment, so-called, on the Red Squirrel Road. There is no attempt here, in terms of the economic viability of the area, to look at a reallocation of timber in the short term so as to preserve the jobs for William Milne and Sons. There is no attempt at all to deal with the economic issues except to say that the roads will be completed despite the concerns of the Teme-Augama Anishnabai.

In regard to the land claim, we have unfortunately a move towards an approach similar to what we have seen in the Alberta situation with the Lubicon band. We have a government that is prepared, while saying it wants to negotiate, to go to court for an injunction to force roads into an area that is disputed and, I suppose in the short term, even to use force to remove the blockade, and yet it says that the government is prepared to negotiate in good faith. I doubt very much if the chief and band can see that in any way to be good faith.

The government says the stewardship council it proposed was a good proposal which was equitable. In fact, if the band had accepted it, it would have been as much as saying that it was giving up part of its claim.

This is a sad day for Indian rights in this province and for the economic development of Temagami.

Mr. B. Rae: I simply want to say that I think the announcements today will leave a legacy of bitterness for a long time in this province. I think it is a significant defeat for the cause of native rights. What the native people are doing in this instance is blockading the extension of roads into a part of this province that they believe historically is theirs.

When the government says, “You cannot do that; you are not allowed to block that extension, and that extension will take place,” what in fact the government of Ontario is doing, by a unilateral action, is asserting its right as opposed to the right of the native people. That is not acceptable to us. It is a profound affront to the notion that we have to come to a historic accommodation with our first citizens in this province. It is a unilateral act by the government of Ontario that I think will, as I say, leave a legacy of real bitterness and difficulty in this province for a very long time to come.

I might also add that this is a terrible defeat for the environment. This is a situation where the government has rejected proposals from a number of groups for a buffer zone and for the creation of a broader and bigger wilderness zone than currently exists. It is a situation where roads are being built without a complete environmental assessment and without public hearings. It is a significant defeat for our native people. It is a significant defeat for those of us who care about the future of this province.

Mr. Harris: I guess what we have today is really a statement pointing out the total incompetence on the part of this government in the whole affair.

In the 1987 election campaign, this government and this Premier (Mr. Peterson) played fast and loose with jobs in northern Ontario to win votes in the south. He has played games now for over a year and a half as a sop to that election stand. Now not only is he no further ahead but he is much further behind on all fronts: on behalf of native peoples, on behalf of the environment, on behalf of northern Ontario and on behalf of the forest industry. In fact, he is much further behind than he was when he started.

I really believe and the people of northern Ontario believe that he has played fast and loose with Milne lumber, he has played fast and loose with those families that depended on those jobs, he has played fast and loose with those families in the other lumber companies in the area and he has played fast and loose, obviously, with the native people as well.

One of the sad things today is, where are the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) and his ministry? The Ministry of Natural Resources owns that land. It has a responsibility for stewardship for that land. Well, I am sorry; he shakes his head, but the court ruling that was read out by the two ministers says he does. He is responsible as the minister.

The people give the Ministry of Natural Resources and the minister a responsibility for managing those lands, for the stewardship of those lands. Now the Premier has destroyed the Ministry of Natural Resources. When you talk to people who work in the Ministry of Natural Resources who are involved in forest management, they do not know whether their boss is the Premier, Shelley Peterson, the Attorney General or the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), but they know it is not their minister.

I tell members, I cannot believe that the Minister of Natural Resources, the man I knew for eight years, is sitting in this House today as a pretender, being the Minister of Natural Resources, in the most important job that ministry has. I really am surprised.

The Premier has destroyed the minister; he has destroyed the ministry. He has done nothing to advance the cause of forestry practices; he has done nothing to advance the interest of economic issues of those of us who depend on resources in the north; he has done nothing for the natives; he has done nothing for the environment, and it really is a sad day in this Legislature as we listen to these announcements today.

Mr. Eves: I think it would be kind to say that the government is back where it started. It certainly has wrestled this problem to the ceiling over the last year and a half.

A spokesman for the special cabinet committee appointed by the Premier was quoted last week as saying, “We’ll have to wait to see what cabinet wants to do.” Well, now we all know what cabinet wants to do.

We have seen this government in other aspects and other ministries -- namely, the Ministry of Health -- supposedly negotiate by confrontation. Now we are seeing negotiation by court injunction. As Chief Potts said, “It is going to be a tremendous hollow victory for the crown as the years go by.”

SCHOOL DRINKING WATER

Mr. Jackson: Although we appreciate the news that the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) has brought into the House today, it is indicative of just how poorly this issue has been handled by his ministry, since matters of environmental safety and risk in our schools have been laid at the feet of his government for the last two and a half years and we have not had a comment from this ministry, except in the last two days, about the unacceptable lead levels in our schools.

These are serious matters. If the minister put these into perspective, he would be aware that all of our new schools have day care spaces, that we have before- and after-school programs in these schools, that there are increased levels of risk for children three or four years of age. We have pregnant women either teaching or volunteering in our schools. I understand that the Ministry of Community and Social Services today announced to the families of the children that they should not be drinking the water in our schools.

This announcement simply has the effect of spreading oil on lead-contaminated water. When will the ministry undertake a serious public review of the environmental hazards which are facing children in our schools and their ability to learn, and facing teachers and their ability to teach in our schools? It is the minister’s responsibility.

1410

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question to the Premier concerning the announcement which was made today. I am sure the Premier would agree with me that the extension of two of the roads in question, the Goulard Road and the Red Squirrel Road, directly involves the extension of the roads into lands which are historically claimed by the Temagami band.

If that is true -- and I do not want to interrupt the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) -- when the Premier and his minister say, “We cannot, however, accept the right of the Teme-Augama Anishnabai to blockade the road,” they are unilaterally, on their own, ruling on the legitimacy of the land claim which is now in dispute.

Why would the Premier not accept that while there are discussions and negotiations on the land claim, there should be no unilateral action taken by the government of Ontario with respect to the extension of existing roads and the construction of new roads? Both of those things are unilateral actions by this government --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say respectfully to my honourable friend opposite that he is wrong. We are asking for a ruling of the court on these matters. There is no unilateral imposition in this particular matter. The courts will decide.

Mr. B. Rae: Unless I misunderstood the statement which was made by the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine), what the Premier has just said is completely incorrect.

The minister said, “With respect to the Red Squirrel Road extension itself, I am reaffirming on behalf of the government the decision to proceed with construction.... To be more specific, I want to reaffirm our intention to allow the Goulard Road to proceed on schedule.”

The Premier is clearly stating unilaterally and quite categorically on behalf of his government, and he was one of the negotiating parties to this discussion with the band, that it is his intention to proceed with those roads and take away the status quo, take away the right of the band itself to assert its historic right. The Premier has broken faith with the native people, with our first citizens, and he has taken unilateral action which will leave a legacy of bitterness for a long time to come in this province.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend recognizes the complexity of this matter, and he would not want to misrepresent the facts in this situation. The trial judge has ruled in favour of the people of Ontario, as the member knows. It is now going to the Court of Appeal. There is no unilateral imposition of anything. We respect the right of the court to rule in this matter, and that is why the Attorney General has laid out the procedure he has. It is going before the court on the matter of injunctions and the court will pass judgement on it; not us, not me, not the member or anyone in this Legislature, but the court.

Mr. B. Rae: Who is applying for the injunction? The man in the moon?

Mr. Speaker: Is that your supplementary?

Mr. B. Rae: You are applying for the injunction. The Attorney General is applying for the injunction. Don’t pretend you are not involved directly. Don’t pretend you are not responsible when you are responsible.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. B. Rae: The Attorney General is shaking his head.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The court is going to decide.

Mr. B. Rae: On the basis of the application that you made. You know that full well.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. B. Rae: In his announcement today, the Minister of Northern Development said he wanted to reach an agreement that would be acceptable to the native people. That has been blown out of the water. To quote his own words, it would be an agreement “that would recognize the environmental significance of the Temagami area.”

I wonder why the Minister of Northern Development in his statement did not have at least the straightforwardness to admit that the government of Ontario has determined that there will be no full environmental hearing. In fact, the wilderness group has had to apply to the court on its own in order to force the government to have such a hearing.

Why will the Premier not admit that he has denied the environmental claims of the wilderness groups and he is denying the native land claim of the band in question? That is the kind of solution that he has provided, one that is not acceptable to two of the partners to whom he has said an agreement has to be acceptable.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will tell my honourable friend that there have been very long discussions on this matter. It goes back a long way. We brought John Daniel --

Mr. B. Rae: And came up with nothing.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member is right. Unfortunately, it was one of those situations. Mr. Daniel came in with a bipartisan group and tried to forge a consensus in this particular area. We have had ongoing discussions with the band where we tried to develop new and creative ways to manage the resource. It went on for a very long period of time.

I stand and say in full confidence that I think we exhausted every reasonable alternative in the circumstances. We stand here in front of you, still prepared to discuss these matters and look for new and creative solutions to these problems.

At the same time, we think that the position put forward is a reasonable one. We are prepared to discuss these matters in the future and sit down with the band or anyone else on future occasions. But after those alternatives were exhausted, we are now in the position that we are asking the court for its judgement on this matter.

I think my honourable friend would not want to mischaracterize this situation. He and I may have a disagreement on a particular matter and it goes to the highest jury in the land or goes to the court. We respect the rule of law in this province and we are proceeding and showing deference to that respect.

CORONER’S INQUEST

Mr. B. Rae: I would like to ask a question of the Solicitor General, speaking of respect for the rule of law. She will know that Bernard Bastien was killed on August 14 by the tactical rescue unit of the Ontario Provincial Police.

She will also know that recently the counsel for the family involved asked for a judicial review of the inquest because of apparent bias on the part of the coroner. The lawyer for the coroner has now requested an adjournment of that Divisional Court hearing which will mean a total halt to the inquest proceedings until some time in the spring.

I am sure the minister would agree that the handling of this tragic event has been a disaster from the very beginning. I wonder why the Solicitor General does not today admit that fact and stand up and say that the only way to resolve this is to have full public inquiry with full subpoena powers to get to the bottom of how this tragedy could possibly have occurred.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The inquest is presently adjourned while these matters are looked into. In the meantime, I, like others, await the decision and continue to discuss the matter with those involved and will continue to do so. Until this is resolved, I have nothing to announce on the subject.

Mr. B. Rae: This is a tragedy for the Bastien family, a tragedy which is being compounded by the complete incompetence of this government with respect to this inquiry.

In 1976 the annual report of the then Solicitor General, in noting the establishment of these units, said, “Their purpose is to deal effectively with barricaded gunmen or individuals or group bent on sniping, hijacking, kidnapping, terrorism or hostage-taking.”

It did not say anything about dealing with kids who are trying or threatening to take their own lives. That was not part of the intention of the group when it was established in 1976. Does the minister not think we need a public inquiry to find out how these tactical units could have gone so far wrong, how their use could have been so wrong in this situation and precisely who was responsible for this misuse of the tactical force?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: As we know, some steps have already been taken to make sure that only proper use is made of the tactical squads, in so far as only the top officer in the force can now call them forth into duty. This is one of the steps that has already been taken. We will examine with great care and great concern any recommendations from the inquest and, at that time, will decide whether a public inquiry is necessary.

Mr. B. Rae: I cannot believe what I have just heard. The minister is saying that she will consider a public inquiry for this family. After the tragedy that they have been through, she is making them go through a coroner’s inquest. We already know that what the tactical unit was doing in Windsor in this situation was completely out of character with its original conception and its original design. The hearing is now adjourned. It will be adjourned until well into the spring.

1420

Is the minister seriously telling us that she will only consider a public inquiry after the family has been through the ordeal of the delay and then the further completion, or not, of the coroner’s inquest? Is that what she is seriously arguing is the most humane and effective way to answer the questions which cry out to be answered for this family some four months after the death of Bernard Bastien?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: We all feel for the family. Unfortunately, nothing that can be done either by virtue of an inquest or a public inquiry, if one is held, will much relieve their personal suffering, for which I feel strongly. They have our sympathy.

On the other hand, we must look at the recommendations that come out of this with the common good of the province in mind, and this will be done. We cannot prejudge, as has the member, that the tactics used were completely out of hand until a fair hearing is given. At that time, we will both hear the results of the inquest and examine the details.

Mr. B. Rae: All right, justifiably it makes sense? Using a SWAT team to deal with a kid who is trying to take his own life makes a lot of sense?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The terms of reference read by the member included the word “barricaded.” I believe there was some question raised as to whether indeed this gentleman had barricaded himself in and threatened to kill a police officer, but these are the subjects of the inquest.

FUND-RAISING DINNER

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Premier. The question I have for the Premier is with respect to a fund-raising dinner which is scheduled for January 11. That particular dinner is being sponsored by George Mann, who is chairman of Unicorp Canada Corp., a company with substantial interests in the natural gas industry. The purpose behind the fund-raiser is to raise money for the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong), as I understand it according to the invitation.

The questions I have for the Premier are, first, is he aware of the date and the nature of the dinner; and second, does he consider it appropriate that the chairman of a company which is in the natural gas industry would hold a fund-raising dinner for the Minister of Energy?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Frankly, I have no idea of the matter that the honourable member is talking about. I was not aware of the dates or any dinner. I do not know any details about it.

Mr. Brandt: By way of further information to the Premier, I would like to bring to his attention that in the invitation that was sent out, it was indicated by the individual sponsoring this dinner that the money for the dinner is to be sent to St. Mary Street. Upon review of that particular address, we found out that is the address of the Ontario Liberal Party headquarters and that is where the money is to be sent.

It is a fund-raising dinner, and I say to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) I have no objection to fund-raising dinners, but the point with respect to this fund-raising dinner is that the Minister of Energy has regulatory powers over a corporation and, in this particular instance, the chairman of that corporation is in fact soliciting assistance by way of requesting funds for the Minister of Energy. I find that kind of lack of objectivity, if you will, that lack of an arm’s-length relationship causes me great concern.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Brandt: Is the first minister of this province concerned about that?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I would be concerned if there was any suggestion of anything untoward. I am not aware of the details of this, but as my honourable friend knows, fund-raising is a highly regulated activity for all parties, for his party and for all three parties in this particular province. He has a number of fund-raisers for his party. We have a number for ours. Everything that is done is public and there for everyone to see.

I know my honourable friend may have taken a different view since he has been in opposition, but I am not aware of anything untoward in these circumstances.

Mr. Brandt: Let me read to the Premier from an article that appeared in today’s Globe and Mail. The article states that Union Enterprises Ltd., a subsidiary of Unicorp, received approval over another company, TransCanada Pipelines Ltd., to build a natural gas line from the United States.

The article states: “Union Enterprises’s proposed pipeline from Michigan, which could import into Ontario as much as 200 million cubic feet a year of US gas...has had vigorous public backing from Ontario Energy Minister Robert Wong.” The chairman of the same company that will benefit from the construction of that gas line is now holding a partisan Liberal fund-raising event for the minister.

Again I want to state without any equivocation that I have no problem with fund-raising dinners. I do have a problem with this dinner, recognizing that the chairman of a corporation that could benefit very directly from the decisions of the Minister of Energy is in fact soliciting funds for the support of the Ontario Liberal Party. Does the Premier consider that to be appropriate, and what actions does he intend to take on it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I understand it, it is the National Energy Board that made the decision with respect to the pipeline.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If my honourable friend is suggesting that the National Energy Board is somehow corruptible by somewhere else, then he has to stand and make that allegation. Maybe my honourable friend is saying that when Darcy McKeough was chairman of Union Gas and raising money for his party, he was somewhat more objective in these matters.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Does the member know what I say? I want to say this. I want to tell the member he is stretching so far on this matter that I say to him he does not have the guts to stand up and make a direct allegation. I think that if he has anything he should; but frankly, knowing my honourable friend, I would have expected some of his colleagues but not him to make unsubstantiated allegations in this regard, particularly when he understands the rules and particularly if he wants to start throwing mud. It can come back on him so easily because of his own involvement with all of these things.

EMPLOYMENT ADJUSTMENT

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is for the Premier. In response to a question put forth by my colleague the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) yesterday, he made reference to a skills development program called Transitions. This program, initiated on August 4, 1987, by his government, seeks to assist newly unemployed workers aged 45 and over in securing new employment through skills enhancement.

On April 1, 1988, barely eight months into the program, funds for this program were cut from $14 million to $8 million, and in the 1987 fiscal year the Ministry of Skills Development was only able to spend a whopping $284,000 on the Transitions program, a program for older workers’ retraining, a program which had a $14-million budget. This year, so far, they have been able to spend $715,000 of their $8 million budget.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mrs. Cunningham: Can the Premier explain why these funds are not being spent?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the honourable minister could help out the member.

Hon. Mr. Curling: The Transitions program, as the honourable member mentioned, is for older workers of 45 and over. There are special guidelines under which people can be trained with a $5,000 voucher.

The honourable member mentioned that the program is not being taken up and not being spent. There are many reasons for this, one being that the economy has demonstrated very strongly. Also, some people who have been laid off have taken the vouchers and have not spent those vouchers on training. They have a two-year period in which to respond to that $5,000. It is their choice when they do so.

To respond to the member and to say why they are not taken up, it could be for that reason; and also, as I said, the economy is such that the layoffs are not as drastic as anticipated.

Mrs. Cunningham: I think everyone in this House should know that Statistics Canada revealed that there were 38,000 unemployed persons in Ontario aged 45 to 64 for the month of October, last month, 1988. There really clearly is a need.

Since this program started in 1987, a grand total of 1,787 workers have applied to this program, a program that this government said was going to help 6,500 per year. We have 38,000 unemployed workers now. This government is blaming the free trade deal. The minister cannot deliver the programs he has now, without a free trade deal, for people who are unemployed.

Can the minister explain why the program is so inadequate that it is not even reaching the people who need our help the most, and what he is going to do about it?

1430

Hon. Mr. Curling: I think the honourable member did not hear me in the first place. I will state again for her that we have seen the economy in a very good state. The program is in place for all those who take it up. The government has put this program in place; it is for those client groups to respond to that program. Therefore, if it is not taken up, are we saying we are going to force these individuals to do so?

They have other recourses, so to speak, to obtain other jobs. If the statistics say there are so many people who have been laid off and they have taken other jobs, it is not for us then to use the Transitions program in forcing it.

Again, they have two years in which to respond to it. Many of the training programs start at various times, and they may be awaiting that time when those programs are in place in which to start the training.

Mrs. Cunningham: Obviously, we are all interested in having our workforce employed. There are 38,000 unemployed persons right now between the ages of 45 to 64. I think it is our responsibility to make certain that people do enter programs that the government thought were important to initiate in the first place. I am going to tell the minister that obviously the way the program is set up right now is not working.

Will the minister change the program so that we can clearly deliver the goods to the workers who need our help the most so that they can be employed?

[Applause]

Hon. Mr. Curling: I am very encouraged by the fact that the member asked that the program be changed. I am also encouraged that the Conservative members applauded that. Yesterday, in the House of Commons, the Liberals asked the federal government to expand the program for older worker adjustment, which addresses those 65 and over. Only a small sector of the population would have benefited from that. The federal government refused to do that. Even the encouragement from those members is not even seen to encourage their federal colleagues to do that.

Mrs. Cunningham: This is not federal money; this is Ontario money.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Our program addresses those 45 and over, targeted to training, while the POWA itself is addressed only to income. We are interested in retraining people so that they can attach themselves to worthwhile employment. I would say to the honourable members across the House to use the same energy to encourage the federal government to change POWA.

Mrs. Cunningham: There is no federal money involved, none at all, none whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

LEAD IN DRINKING WATER

Mr. B. Rae: I am amazed that the Minister of Housing was not up on her feet announcing a change to the Ontario Building Code. She has the power to announce under its regulations that we will no longer permit under the building code the use of lead in any soldering that is done. I am particularly astounded when you consider that the latest information from the US Centers for Disease Control considers anything over 10 micrograms per decilitre as of serious concern in young children.

When the latest published information on Ontario children indicates that 52 per cent of children six and under exceed that standard, I wonder why the Minister of Housing would not have been up on her feet today to announce a change in Ontario’s building code. We can deal with it. We have the technology to deal with it. We do not have to use lead in soldering. Why would the minister not be up on her feet to announce that change right away?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I am up on my feet right now to say that we have been working on this issue for quite a while, and therefore we are moving immediately --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: If the gentlemen opposite do not want to hear the answer -- the gentlemen opposite are only happy to be outraged, but they are not concerned about the health of our children.

We are moving immediately by order in council to amend the building code to prevent the use of solder containing more than two tenths of a per cent of lead. We can move to do that immediately by order in council, and we are doing that today.

Mrs. Grier: I certainly welcome the announcement that it is going to be done today. I think the supplementary is, is it not the case that the plumbing committee of the ministry has known for a year that lead in solder was causing problems with drinking water, and why has it taken until today and until the revelations of this problem by the CBC for the minister to make the decision to act?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The building code has been in the process of being amended on this question of plumbing for quite a while, but we did not have the information about difficulty in the drinking water. Under normal circumstances, this whole area has been out for discussion to the concerned groups, including environmental groups, since August. None of them have raised this issue of safety. In fact, no one has raised the issue of safety until a few days ago. Because of the need to move quickly, we decided to move through order in council immediately.

The work has been going on for a while and it has been part of the consultation process since August. It has been out there for people to comment on because that is the normal process for amending the building code. We have been following that normal process. We are now speeding it up to deal with the urgency that has been raised.

PROPOSED HOSPITAL MERGER

Mr. Eves: I have a question for the Minister of Health. I would note that after question period yesterday, the report of the proposed merger of the two hospitals we spoke of, Wellesley Hospital and Sunnybrook Medical Centre, was indeed finally delivered to the district health council, but only after question period yesterday -- a coincidence, I suspect.

With respect to this proposed merger, can the minister tell us if her ministry is seriously considering spending over $300 million of the taxpayers’ money to merge two hospitals and at the same time eliminate over 232 active treatment beds?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The member opposite has produced a report today in the House that is a recommendation to the minister supported by the boards of two very prestigious hospitals, the Wellesley Hospital and the Sunnybrook Hospital, as well as the University of Toronto.

I want to tell the member that the report has been received by the ministry, and I met with the chairmen of both boards, and others, as well as the dean of the faculty of medicine of the University of Toronto, to discuss the proposal. It is under review by the ministry, and I have to assure the member opposite that the ministry will take every opportunity to ask whatever questions are important and relevant prior to any recommendation going to our Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon).

Mr. Eves: I asked the minister whether she would consider eliminating 232 active treatment beds from the system. She did not begin to respond to the question. I also pointed out that it was only after question period yesterday that her ministry gave the go-ahead to the two hospitals to release the report to the district health council, despite the fact that she told us yesterday and on numerous occasions how important district health councils are in the planning of health resources in the province.

Will the minister make a commitment in the House this afternoon that a thorough, independent review of this report will be done by the district health council, and that when that review is done, it will be made public immediately -- in other words, she and her ministry will not sit on it -- so that all members of the public and this Legislature can see what the recommendations of an independent review by the district health council are?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think it is important, in response to the member’s question, to address two issues. First, at this time we are discussing with district health councils an expanded planning mandate. As he knows, the district health councils were established some 15 years ago by the previous government to be advisory to the Minister of Health. At this time we are discussing an enhanced mandate in the planning area with the district health councils. That is question one.

However, the member does raise a very important point. When we discuss the fact that technologies are altering the way that medicine is practised, one of the points that was raised to me, in my discussions across the province, by physicians, by health planners, by economists and so forth, is that technology is allowing us the opportunity to provide services in many different ways. In fact, beds are no longer the benchmark for services being provided. Often services can be provided on an outpatient and ambulatory basis and enhance the level of service.

I would suggest to him that perhaps I could give him information that I have received which would suggest that beds are no longer simply the benchmark for services and that we have to look at innovative and creative ways of maintaining and enhancing the levels of service for the people of this province.

1440

ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

Mr. Sola: My question is also to the Minister of Health. Last week an education and needle-exchange program to fight the spread of acquired immune deficiency syndrome among drug users was approved by Toronto’s board of health. This program was developed in consultation with police Chief Jack Marks, the provincial Ministry of Health and the Addiction Research Foundation.

While our role is certainly not to encourage or condone lawbreakers I fully understand the need to prevent the transmission of AIDS, but I have definite concerns about the method being considered. Does the minister support this initiative, and what types of guidelines or conditions does the ministry plan to impose on such a program?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As I mentioned yesterday in estimates when we had an important discussion about the public health challenge that is posed by AIDS, our response is twofold: (1) to stop the spread of this dreaded disease; and (2) to ensure compassionate care for those who have contracted the disease.

I think it is very important that the member and all members of this House know that the ministry, in fact, has taken an important role in trying to stop the transmission of this disease. We have participated on a committee with representatives of the city of Toronto to look at the relationship between intravenous drug use and the transmission of AIDS.

He is correct that the ministry, at the present time, is reviewing a proposal from the Toronto board of health.

Mr. Sola: As a supplementary, the government has an obligation to provide a clear and consistent message. Various government departments must not work, or appear to be working, at cross-purposes. Is the minister not concerned about the apparent message going out to the public? On the one hand, we have the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black) working on a special task force to fight drug use among students; on the other hand, is distributing needles to addicts not a tacit approval of this behaviour?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I am aware that this is an extremely sensitive issue. Not only are intravenous drug users at risk when it comes to AIDS, but so are their partners. We know that intravenous drug use does lead to the transmission of this deadly disease. Experience from other jurisdictions has shown that needle exchange programs can be effective in certain circumstances. However, I have said in the House before and I will say again that any program should include an addiction component to provide counselling as well as assistance to those people who are presently intravenous drug users to help them get off drugs. As we look at a comprehensive strategy, I believe those are important components of any program that is proposed.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour, if I can take him back to the Libbey Owens Ford plant in Lindsay for a moment, is aware that after the eight workers in that plant had their health pretty well wrecked, they were fired as soon as the company knew it.

The minister got himself and his ministry very much involved in that situation. The minister is also aware that eventually the company took back six of the eight workers, two of whom in the meantime had quit because of the conditions in the plant.

Can the minister tell us if part of that agreement and part of the work done by his ministry was that there would be no retaliation against the workers in that plant? That certainly is an understanding of the workers.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: My understanding from my officials is that there was no agreement of the sort that the member for Hamilton East refers to; that as a result of the Canadian Auto Workers and the local president and officials from the Ministry of Labour, the plant, Libbey Owens Ford, adopted a policy that workers in the situation those eight workers were in -- that is, sensitive to isocyanates -- would be fully reinstated and put on long-term disability payments representing 100 per cent of their wages, and that would continue until determinations had been made by the board.

I just want to add, though, that I would not expect that there would be any agreement that there would be no retaliations, because retaliations of any sort are against the law and the ministry would not in any way tolerate a situation where there were reprisals or retaliations against workers.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am glad the minister has said that they would not tolerate a situation where there were reprisals against the workers.

Can the minister then tell us what he is going to do in answer for the workers who are down at the Ontario Federation of Labour today and will be there tomorrow morning, the six workers who have now been fired in that plant: Kenny Hum, president of the local; Jackie Brown and Len Colp, both members of the safety and health committee that has been raising the concerns in that particular plant; Linda Woodman, who is the young woman who was largely responsible for the plant being organized two years ago; and Todd Richards, whose only problem seems to have been that the plant manager was told he would probably be one of the first who would refuse to work in an unsafe condition under the legislation?

All of these key people in the plant have been fired. The company flatly refuses to deal with any reinstatement. There are obviously cases going to the board on this. Can the minister tell us how he can sit there and allow this to happen, given the history of that particular situation to date?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I think it is completely unfair for the member for Hamilton East to suggest that I am just sitting here and allowing that sort of thing to happen. Indeed, that situation and other situations that we have been encountering were raised by me late in the evening last night with the secretary-treasurer of the Canadian Auto Workers, because it is a serious situation.

I just want to tell the member for Hamilton East three things. First of all, it is an offence against the Occupational Health and Safety Act in this province to take reprisal measures against workers who raise concerns about their own health and safety, and it is the responsibility of my ministry to investigate such allegations and to proceed on the basis of what those investigations suggest.

Second, in the case of the workers the member for Hamilton East mentions, each one of those workers has now instigated a grievance, has lodged a grievance, which will be heard by an arbitrator, and those grievances are obviously being sponsored by the union.

Third, the question of reinstatement can be dealt with on an expeditious basis by the Ontario Labour Relations Board under application, which can be dealt with expeditiously.

My understanding is that the Canadian Auto Workers are currently considering the advisability of proceeding to the board. I would not want to make any comment on the case that would prejudice their application before the board or the grievance applications that will be before an arbitrator.

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Premier. For the past several weeks, our party has been calling on his government to clear the air regarding the land development practices in York region.

Today a story is circulating on a federal probe into York region’s land development practices. Another newspaper story alleges that the town of Vaughan staff are destroying documents which relate to the issue of development in the town. York region continues to receive intense media attention, which heightens the frustration and confusion for residents in the area.

I will ask the Premier again: Will he launch a public inquiry into these matters and once and for all lift the cloud of suspicion?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think we have discussed this matter on several occasions in the House and with my honourable friend. I am not aware of those particular suggestions in today’s newspaper, but as he knows, there is a police inquiry and I think that, as an independent group, they will come to the bottom of this matter very quickly. I think my honourable friend will be satisfied that that is the appropriate course of action.

Mr. Cousens: I am not satisfied. It has been said that a person is more influenced by what he suspects than by what he is told. In spite of the suspicions of the newspapers, I am satisfied that the administration in Vaughan is made up of honest, responsible, conscientious people, and yet a black cloud of suspicion continues to surround these communities.

Too much has been unfolded. Too many suspicions are being allowed to stand, and yet the Premier sits back idly while residents in York region are left in the dark. What is he prepared to do today to begin to restore public confidence in our municipal planning process?

1450

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate what the honourable member is saying. There are some people who just want to cast suspicions and dark clouds on other people, or draw unrelated facts together to give some unsubstantiated allegations about someone else. I am sure my honourable friend is familiar with that. I cannot think of any recent examples in the last half-hour, but my honourable friend will be aware of that as well.

We have debated this question at some length. It is our view, on the advice of the law officers of the crown, that the best approach is to have an independent police inquiry into this matter to look at any suggestions of illegality in this regard. It is our view and our hope that this will clear the air on the matter. If there is any criminality, it will isolate that, and they can move effectively and quickly in that regard.

My honourable friend is aware that people stand up regularly in this House and cast aspersions on others. Some use that power responsibly and others do not use it responsibly. That, perhaps, is one of the joys of living in a free society.

FEDERAL MEMBER’S COMMENTS

Mr. Chiarelli: My question is to the Premier, who is also Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Last week, the citizens of Ottawa-Carleton were both surprised and disgusted by the comments made by a prominent member of the Mulroney government concerning the federal Liberal sweep in eastern Ontario.

In an interview with the Ottawa Citizen, Don Blenkarn, the chairman of the federal finance committee, threatened: “If Ottawa voters felt neglected before, they don’t know the meaning of the word. Why wouldn’t you cut back on everything you could in Ottawa? Who’s to care about a bunch of Ottawa public servants who lose their jobs?” That is an exact quote. The Mulroney government has been given the mandate through a democratic election to deal fairly and to listen -- to those in areas with government representation.

At a time when current efforts are being made by other, more responsible individuals to heal differences and get on with the job of fair and honest government in our country, what sort of message do such comments send to citizens about political morality in government?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am aware of those comments because I was in Ottawa last Friday at a delightful luncheon, to which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) and the leader of the third party were invited. I am sorry they could not make it.

Mr. Sterling: And every other MPP in the Ottawa area, save one.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We humbly apologize for that. We invited the member’s leader and we would have thought he would normally have invited the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) in his stead, given the aspirations he has in that particular area. I apologize for that, and may I say how much we missed his leader on that occasion.

Let me just respond seriously for a moment. I know there was quite a violent reaction in the Ottawa area. The mayor expressed that quite vehemently, and frankly, I agree with the mayor. I do not believe in punishment-and-reward politics, whether a member is returned or not returned in a particular area. I think once one is elected, one has to be as dispassionate and fair as one can possibly be. I do not believe in politics that pits region against region, and to the extent that government programs exist, they have to be done fairly and dispassionately.

Mr. Sterling: I wish you did in the provincial sense.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I agree with my honour-able friend from Ottawa. I think this kind of comment sends out the wrong kind of message about the political process. My friends opposite may scoff. If they support the words of Mr. Blenkarn in this respect, then they should stand up and say so, but if they do not like them, they should stand up and say they do not stand for this kind of politics. Frankly, I do not like it, the mayor did not like it, and I do not blame him for the very strong reaction he had.

Mr. Sterling: Why not do something for Ottawa for a change?

Mr. Speaker: Order; supplementary.

Mr. Pouliot: He doesn’t get a supplementary for that, does he?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the members that they made the rules.

Mr. Chiarelli: I think the people of Ottawa-Carleton should be aware of the fact that the member for Carleton and the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) apparently support the statements of Mr. Blenkarn.

As I stated earlier, Mr. Blenkarn is chairman of the high-profile House of Commons finance committee, which is influential in formulating federal government policy. Given such disparaging and irresponsible comments by its chairman, will the Premier assure the thousands of citizens in the Ottawa area who are federal public servants that the provincial government will do everything in its power to encourage the federal government to act responsibly on this issue?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I regret the kind of statement Mr. Blenkarn made, because I think it reflects ill on the political process and the integrity members of this House try to bring to the process.

That being said, there is a substantive issue at stake here and that is the question of the space agency and the location thereof. That matter has become a divisive political symbol, as my honourable friend is aware. It has been kicked back and forth. What we are trying to do is to turn that, from our point of view, into a win-win situation. We believe it should be in the national capital region. We should be using the strengths of Quebec and Ontario together.

It seems to me that after a particularly divisive election, the nature of which we have had, which had regional implications -- some sought to pit one region against another -- we should now be using every device we have to bring the nation back together and try to build symbols of unity. I think this can be one, and we have put forward our views in that matter. To have the suggestion that any region of the country would be punished because of the way it voted in the last campaign or in a provincial campaign, I think demeans the entire process and nobody in this House would want to associate himself with those remarks.

ABANDONED URANIUM MINE

Mrs. Grier: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. For some months now, residents in the Bancroft area and in the watershed surrounding that area have been making the minister aware of their concern about abandoned uranium mines. I would like to ask the minister specifically about Madawaska Mines Ltd. Can the minister tell the House if he is satisfied that Madawaska Mines Ltd. has fulfilled all the obligations under the decommissioning licence issued to it by the Atomic Energy Control Board?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Our ministry officials have been in conversation with the federal officials, who have some considerable jurisdiction in this matter, to determine the record of the company in terms of its decommissioning. A number of residents, as the member has indicated, have communicated with me their concerns that the final product in fact should be one that is environmentally satisfactory.

In my ministry discussions with the federal officials, we are endeavouring to bring about those circumstances. As the member knows, it involves a couple of ministries of the provincial government and a couple of ministries of the federal government. I hope that together we can bring about a resolution of this matter that is satisfactory to all.

Mrs. Grier: I hope the minister is not going to delay with it because the decommissioning licence of AECB, which says that a report on the decommissioning shall be given to the Minister of the Environment at least three months before the end of the fifth year of the monitoring phase, specifically involves his ministry in that decommissioning, and the end of the five-year monitoring phase is tomorrow, November 30, 1988. So if all the minister is doing is being in discussion, he had better act pretty fast this afternoon.

Is the minister aware that if he does not act very fast, then by tomorrow AECB can walk away from this problem? Has the minister any guarantee that the very sensible proposal put forward by the residents and by Cairs, the Canadian Institute for Radiation Safety, for a joint project to clean up this area is going to be funded? What will the minister do if the monitoring is not satisfactory?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: All of these matters are under review and consideration and discussion by our officials and the federal officials. A problem, as the member knows, exists in these circumstances and it is one we all want to work on. The problem is when there is a split jurisdiction dealing with it.

In the federal domain, for instance, we recognize that as soon as we mention the word “radioactivity,” the federal government certainly has paramount responsibility in this regard. As the member knows, that dates back to during the Second World War or even before that, when there was development of nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. The federal government took responsibility for it and jealously guarded that responsibility for a number of years.

The Ministry of the Environment and probably the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Health and others have been in constant discussion with them and we hope the matter can be resolved to the satisfaction of the people in the area and the people of the province. Certainly, we will press the federal government and the federal agency to reach that kind of agreement which will be beneficial to all.

1500

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr. Jackson: My question is to the Minister of Health regarding the ongoing, unacceptably high risks that Halton and Peel residents have been subjected to as a result of the now 110-day-old ambulance strike, which the minister refuses to help solve. We have repeatedly brought to the minister’s attention cases of two and three times higher response times for ambulances, and higher levels of risk. Today, I have been made aware that patients are being forced to double up on their way to the hospital.

How would she, as Minister of Health, like it if she was being rushed to hospital and then was told the ambulance was going to make a detour and make another stop, and that she would be asked to roll over and make room in the ambulance for another patient? Does the minister think that is an acceptable level of risk and an appropriate way to run the ambulance service for any citizen in this province?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The member’s categorization of events is totally inaccurate, false and is not an accurate categorization of somebody in an emergency situation. It is very common in fact, in nonemergency situations, to have more than one patient in an ambulance. That happens all the time. However, when a patient is in a life-threatening situation on his or her way to hospital, the ambulance does not stop.

Mr. Jackson: So the minister is not prepared to roll over.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Get your facts straight.

Mr. Jackson: In fact, we have the facts straight. We have cases. The member for Oakville South (Mr. Carrothers) has a drug overdose case that waited nearly half an hour. We have another Liberal member with a case of a child with a multiple fracture; nearly half an hour.

When is the minister going to take responsibility as Minister of Health and stop treating this as simply a labour issue, when hundreds of thousands of people in Halton and Peel are being subjected to unacceptable levels of risk? She is playing Russian roulette with our health system and she had better get involved before there is another tragedy on the floor of this Legislature.

Again, when will the minister, in concert with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara), get these parties back to the bargaining table and resolve this strike so that the risk level for ambulance service in our communities in Halton and Peel is back to acceptable levels?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I ask the member from the Halton area to categorize the situation fairly, appropriately and responsibly. He knows there is a very big difference between a response to a life-threatening emergency and to a nonemergency situation. He also knows that the situation is being monitored by the ministry and that I have assured him on numerous occasions that there is no risk to the public.

STUDENT HOUSING

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Last winter, in the Legislature and also outside the Legislature, I approached the minister again and again about the need for residences for community colleges in southern Ontario. I was very pleased that some weeks ago the minister was able to announce that her ministry would be proceeding with this type of program. But in Barrie, the housing crisis continues and we continue to have problems accommodating the students at the Barrie Georgian College campus.

My question to the minister is, what sort of funding, what sort of timing is contemplated with regard to this housing problem for the students of Georgian College in that community?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I appreciate the fact that the honourable member did raise this concern with me, as did a number of other people in the House; in fact, it was a concern for a number of colleges. I too was pleased to be able to announce earlier this fall that we were changing the long-standing policy which had permitted only northern colleges to build residences.

Specifically in terms of funding, we are making available to the colleges $100 million in Canada pension plan funds at lower than market rates to assist them in the financing of residences. The colleges have, quite obviously, been informed of the change in policy, and their requests for approval to proceed with the building of residences will be processed as soon as the requests come in. I indicate that I have not had a formal request from Georgian College at this point.

Mr Owen: The minister has visited the campus and she is aware that the first and only automotive centre in all of Canada has been developed there. It has been done with a combination of moneys from the government, but also with a great deal of input from the private sector. I am wondering if the minister has had an opportunity to look at the possibility of that same combination being explored with regard to residences at the community college level.

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: The member mentioned the co-operation between Georgian College and the automotive industry. That is a very fine example of that kind of co-operation. I think it is interesting that in Barrie too there is a private developer who has built a residence for the use of Georgian College students right across from the college. I think that is another existing example of that kind of co-operation.

Certainly, colleges are permitted under this new policy to enter into agreements with private developers for the building of residences. They are also quite clearly free to use fund-raising to supplement the funding of a residence.

CASE OF CHARLES PRUDENT

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Attorney General regarding the fact that Charles Prudent of Schreiber, an individual who was found guilty of two counts of gross indecency in 1986 in Winnipeg and subsequently served time and was charged in December 1987 with two further counts of sexual assault on young girls, was released on December 29, 1987, with conditions for a preliminary hearing in May 1988. That hearing was then postponed unti1 September 1988. In October 1988, he was again arrested for sexual assault of an eight-year-old girl in Schreiber, was released after a show cause hearing and has still not been brought to trial.

Can the minister investigate and determine why it has taken so long, almost one year, for this individual to be brought to trial? Can he explain why an individual like this, who has been found guilty and served time in the past and obviously appears to have problems, has been released, even though he is not maintaining the conditions upon which the release depended?

Hon. Mr. Scott: As the honourable member knows, I will be glad to look into that. I am not familiar with the facts. The reason the court granted bail or release is a matter I do not know at the moment, but I will undertake to find that out. I will also inquire into the reason the adjournments occurred and get back to him as quickly as I can.

Mr Wildman: Apparently one of the reasons for the adjournments was that the individual who is being charged had a heart condition and was hospitalized at one point. But in September, he was charged with breach of the undertaking. In October, he was again charged with breach of his undertaking and yet was still released from custody, again with further conditions, and as I have said, was again charged with another offence of a similar nature in October. Surely this kind of individual should be brought to trial as quickly as possible and should not be free to commit the same kind of offence again.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I will be glad to look into that. As the honourable member knows but perhaps forgets, I am not the boss of the judges in the province. They are independent under our rule, and it is a very good rule under our Constitution that gives independent judges. Decisions about bail or release are made by judges.

I will be glad to look into it and see what the facts are, but I know the honourable member would not want to hold me responsible for the otherwise excellent conduct of our bench. Agreed?

Mr. Wildman: To be frank, I just want to protect the kids in the area.

SENIOR CITIZENS’ TAX GRANTS

Mr. McCague: To the Minister of Revenue, I have a quote here, “It is the government’s belief that seniors deserve special relief from provincial retail sales tax.” If the minister really does believe that, and that is a quote from him, why did he not increase the seniors’ tax grant by 14.3 per cent, the same amount as he increased the retail sales tax?

1510

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I am glad that the member realizes what the Ministry of Revenue is doing for senior citizens and that good programs have been introduced. Maybe I should remind the member that last year we increased the property tax credit program to seniors by $100. It is now up to $600 a year. I think this is a great move. Other programs were introduced for senior farmers through the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. I think this government is responding to the needs of every senior citizen in this province.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved first reading of Bill 193, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Mackenzie moves that the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance requiring immediate consideration;

namely, the refusal of the Liberal government to honour its responsibility for and its commitments to working people in the area of job protection and labour adjustment -- specifically, in the face of two plant closures announced within the last week, its refusal to do more than to pass the legislative buck to the federal government, even though jurisdiction for employment standards, labour relations and pensions is provincial; and its refusal, three and a half years after making the commitment in the 1985 accord that brought it to power, to “reform job security legislation, including notice and justification of layoffs and plant shutdowns

Mr. Speaker: The motion was received in time and therefore is in order. I will listen to the member for Hamilton East and representatives of the other two parties for up to five minutes.

Mr. Mackenzie: The urgency of the motion just read is underlined by the Tory win in the recent federal election. Many of us believe that Mr. Mulroney has sold out our country and the best that we have seen from the Premier (Mr. Peterson) was tough talk that flailed away with actions that had all the power and persuasion of wet noodles.

Ontario workers know from the Premier’s pathetic performance on this issue that he cannot be trusted. I can recall his saying prior to his election that there would be no deal unless at least six commitments were made, and they dealt with a number of areas, including the auto pact, dispute settlement and countervail. None of these conditions were met and what followed was really a coward’s retreat after the election.

After the federal election, as we saw in this House the other day, the Premier totally dropped the ball and could not wait to get back into bed with the Bullochs and Browns and his chamber of commerce friends. Indeed, he is so far into their pockets, he should worry about choking to death on the lint.

The Premier has had the report on plant closures by the standing committee on resources development before him since back in June 1987. None of its actions or recommendations have been acted on. even though the concern was obvious, the work done by the committee was extensive and certainly the recommendations made were not radical.

In addition to that, the Premier of this province put his signature on an accord in May 1985 which said -- and these are some of the things that were promised as a condition of support so that the Liberals could form a government -- “Reform of job security legislation, including notice and justification of layoffs and plant shutdowns and improved severance legislation.” It also covered “private pension reform based on the recommendations of the Ontario select committee on pensions.”

Once again, nothing happened; and it proved, if nothing else, that the Premier’s work on this document was not worth the paper that it was written on.

Now, following several years of corporate rationalization which has cost us many jobs and given us all the advance warning we needed, the moment of truth approaches. Already we have seen, since the election, three plants announce their closure: Gillette Canada and PPG Canada here and Jarman shoes in Quebec.

The clear evidence of downsizing and the potential loss of hundreds of branch plants is upon us, and what is the Premier’s response to my leader’s questions as to how he will move to protect jobs and communities? He says, as he did in this House, I believe just yesterday, he does not want to enact punitive legislation.

The Premier’s concern is obvious: protect the companies; no legislation that puts any responsibility on their shoulders for the human wreckage from lost jobs and reduced pensions; nothing punitive for business. But it is another thing for workers in the province; with workers, the decisions that business makes can be as punitive as hell, and it bothers the Premier and the Liberal government not one whit.

Without legislation to protect our people from the very real harm many will suffer as a result of free trade, this government is sending a very real message to all Ontarians: Working people are not nearly as important as business. Workers can expect no help from the Peterson Liberals in Ontario.

The need for this debate is urgent and overwhelming. Action on additional worker protection, plant closing justifications, additional severance, workers’ benefit and pension protection and retraining and occupational adjustment programs cannot wait or be fluffed off to the feds as long as we are on this suicidal free trade course.

In addition, I might say that the voters in Ontario are seeing a graphic example of how this government can destroy the principle of honesty and integrity in public service. Certainly that is the message that is going out very, very clearly to workers across the province when we see the recommendations that have been made by standing committees of this Legislature in an accord signed by the Premier and then see that he is not willing to move on any of these recommendations and indeed says he does not want to take punitive action. There sure as blazes is punitive action being taken against workers in Ontario, and this government simply has to move.

Mr. Brandt: My party would like to join in support of the resolution that has been put forward, in that we share the concerns of the New Democratic Party with respect to the lack of action on the part of the current government as it relates to providing adequate assistance and adequate programs of help for workers who do suffer layoffs.

We do, however, want to part company with the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) and other spokesmen from the New Democratic Party if in fact they want to direct, as the last speaker did, all layoffs from now until forever as a direct consequence of signing a free trade agreement. I would remind members of this House that there have been layoffs virtually on a weekly basis throughout this province, as there have been plant openings and expansions that have occurred.

Our concern is for any worker who is laid off, irrespective of what the reason might happen to be, whether it is as a result of an adjustment under free trade or an adjustment that takes place in a global economy with rapidly changing conditions that are going to affect Canada, the United States, the European common market and other trading allies we have; the fact of the matter still is that when a worker is laid off it is a very devastating and debilitating kind of experience. The worker truly deserves to have and should have the kind of assistance government can provide.

1520

It is interesting to note the rhetoric of the current government as it relates to the whole question of where its responsibilities lie. My colleague the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham) has raised the question in this House with the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling), as an example, about the lack of action on the Transitions program. She has questioned the minister as to why this government is not doing more to be effective in that particular regard.

My colleague the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) has raised the question about the kind of adjustment programs required for older laid-off workers, those workers who are particularly susceptible not only to layoffs but also to difficulties in finding future work opportunities. Again, this government has done very little in that respect and has fallen far short of its responsibilities.

There is in fact a committee which has been set up at the federal level, and although there are extremists in the whole discussion on the free trade matter, I would like to bring to the attention of this House that those who have a fair and balanced mind on the question will recognize that not only will there be layoffs which occur, with or without free trade, but also there will be expansions.

I would like to mention one in today’s paper which will result in hundreds of jobs for Ontario, and that is Canadian Thermos Products which is moving part of its operations from the United States into Canada. We will benefit very directly as a result of the new jobs which will come from that particular decision.

The fact of the matter still remains that when the government of Ontario tries to place all of the responsibility on the federal government for layoffs when, in fact, as my colleagues in the New Democratic Party have pointed out, employment standards, labour relations and pensions are all provincial areas of responsibility, it is shirking its responsibility by not joining in with an effort to make any layoffs which occur, for whatever reason, as effective in terms of the workers’ assistance programs as is possible.

The de Grandpré committee, which has been set up by the federal government, is one such activity that has been set up to assist workers, and I think the government of Ontario has a very direct responsibility to join in with the findings of that particular committee to determine exactly what it is the province can and should be doing when adjustment programs are necessary. I simply do not feel the government of Ontario can take the attitude that it can wash its hands of this whole thing in some fashion and say it has no responsibility whatever.

I would ask the members on that side of the House: Without a free trade agreement, and there have been, as they well know, layoffs which occurred long before free trade was ever a discussion in this country, was it not at that time a responsibility of the government of Ontario to pitch in and help wherever possible?

Who is going to make the Solomon-like decisions in the cases we have before us as to whether new expansions and new opportunities are a result of free trade or not a result of free trade? Whatever the conditions are, the government of Ontario has a responsibility and this motion very clearly points that out.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I have been reviewing the words of the motion standing in the name of the member for Hamilton East and listening with care, as always, to his comments and the comments just concluded by the leader of the third party.

Let me say at the outset that we as a government certainly will be prepared this afternoon to debate this question, simply because we think the record of the government in respect of these matters affected by the most recent national election and the very likelihood that the free trade agreement, initialled almost a year ago, will in fact become the law of the land in the not too distant future -- we feel, as a government, that there are important issues that must be addressed.

Quite frankly, the Premier has indicated, I think with eloquence and with effect, that while we do have responsibilities and we accept the responsibilities that are ours as a provincial government, it is absolutely clear that the government of Canada, having sponsored this deal, having fought with great vigour in the recent national election campaign for its passage, must accept its responsibility, particularly in the critical area of adjustment policy.

As the Premier has indicated, there is and has been a commission headed by Mr. de Grandpré that is at work in this area. We want, as a provincial government, to repeat that we have no intention of relieving the government of Canada of its obligations to accept its responsibilities in this very important area of all of the adjustment that will be occasioned by virtue of the passage of the free trade deal.

I want to say to the member for Hamilton East that this government has a very good record in the areas about which he has expressed concern. I think, for example, of the motion’s interest in the whole question of notice and severance policy. Under the leadership of this Premier, this jurisdiction, Ontario, has the most stringent notice and severance policy to be found anywhere in Canada or in the United States.

We think that is a very good thing and are quite prepared to debate with the member for Hamilton East and the leader of the third party our responsibility and accomplishments in the past and our intentions in the future.

My colleague the Minister of Skills Development is here. I know he will be anxious to participate in the debate this afternoon, as will the member for Mississauga West (Mr. Mahoney), who is the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. I know he is going to want to put before the assembly the views and intentions and the very considerable policy achievements of that ministry in the Ontario government with respect to the whole question of preparing the Ontario economy for the challenges that lie ahead.

I want to repeat that the Peterson government has taken a number of initiatives over the last three and a half years to prepare Ontario and to prepare various sectors of the Ontario economy for the challenge that lies ahead. We have much to point to by way of accomplishment. To be sure, there is more to be done and we intend to do it.

While we have accomplished much and while we intend to accomplish much more, we do not intend to absolve the government of Canada of its responsibility. I would not want any of our colleagues in the assembly or any in the viewing audience this afternoon to get a wrong impression. The Prime Minister of Canada, his colleagues at the national level and his friends here in the provincial Legislature have spared no effort, have shied away from nothing in their praise of this free trade agreement.

The people of Canada have spoken. The Prime Minister of Canada and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada have received a mandate and enough approval for this Reagan-Mulroney free trade deal to proceed; and proceed it will. But they must, as Conservatives here and in Ottawa, accept the good and the bad. They cannot expect the government of Ontario to help them with the adjustment and to shoulder a difficulty that we have pointed to. So the debate this afternoon will undoubtedly proceed.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened very carefully to the three members who have spoken. I am sure that all members have done the same.

According to standing order 37(d), I will put the question: Shall the debate proceed?

Motion agreed to.

EMPLOYMENT ADJUSTMENT / LA RECONVERSION DE LA MAIN-D’OEUVRE

Mr. Speaker: Do any members wish to participate in the debate? The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. B. Rae: I accept the encouragement from the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Chiarelli). I am not used to receiving it. I appreciate very much the chance to participate in the debate.

I think that in the dynamic that has unfolded over the last year and a half, we now understand exactly what the game plan of this Liberal government really is. It was, first of all, obviously to play dead on the question of free trade as soon as the last provincial election was over. I think that has been clear from that day to this.

1530

Now, if I may say so, with the almost invisible participation of the Premier in the last federal election and the participation of the Premier in this great reconciliation with Mr. Bourassa on the question of free trade, we have a clear indication from him: “Fine, the election is over. I have the choice that I want. My brother has won in Willowdale, Mr. Mulroney has won in Ottawa and that is all I wanted to accomplish in the first place. Now we can get on with things.”

We now see unfolding day after day in this Legislature, and again today in the speech by the House leader, the position that has been taken by the provincial government. The position is quite clear: “If there is any problem that is happening in this province, blame Mulroney, blame Ottawa.” He is ideally positioned to do just that.

I might add, in addition to that perspective, that the other clear reality in this place -- it has been true since September 1987 -- is that this government has basically shut down operations for the duration. They will shut down operations, I would think, for two-and-a-half to three-and-a-half years, depending on when they decide to call the next provincial election.

Then, just as took place under the Tories between 1981 and 1985, just as we saw with other Tory governments in this province and, indeed, as we saw with the Mulroney government, we will suddenly see emerging in 1990 or 1991 an array of things that they promised to do two or three years ago and that now suddenly will become timely.

Whoever is occupying the position of Minister of Labour will suddenly produce responses to the Donner report on overtime and the Ianni report on pensions and early retirement. We will suddenly find responses from the Ministry of Community and Social Services with respect to child care. We will suddenly find answers with respect to pensions. We will suddenly find some responses, many of which will be purely cosmetic. Nevertheless, that will be the approach.

I am here to tell the government that, as much as it might trouble them to hear it from us, they will hear a consistent message: that is, that they were elected in 1987 to do something, that they are responsible for the employee-employer relationship in this province in a legal, constitutional sense and that they cannot ignore their responsibilities to legislate for this province with respect to the protection of the rights of employees. That is basically what this is all about.

We are never going to get a company saying, “This layoff is taking place because of free trade,” or “This part of our operations is being affected by free trade but this part has nothing to do with free trade.”

Everybody here knows -- and the Premier’s Council has said it -- that we are in for big changes in this province whether or not the free trade agreement was in place. The critical question for this province is not that the Premier wants to talk with the federal government about his vision, which is what he said yesterday to the press. What we need is clear leadership from this government in areas where they have responsibility, where they have the obligation to do something and where they have the legal obligation to act on behalf of employees.

Mr. Chiarelli: Whom are you going to tax?

Mr. B. Rae: If I may just continue with the member for Ottawa West, perhaps he would like to hear.

Perhaps he would like to talk to the workers from Best Outerwear Ltd., a company that is involved in the garment trade not too far from this place. Perhaps the member would like to go down and talk to the employees of Best Outerwear and explain to them why they are out of pocket some $25,000 because their company went bankrupt.

This government has been in possession for three years of a report that clearly stated what it should be doing in defence of workers who are not paid their wages by bankrupt companies. The member for Ottawa West may want to talk to those workers who showed me their time cards a couple of months ago. They showed the wages they had earned, in some cases as much as $1,000, which were not paid by their employer.

The question is not so much, what can the Premier argue about with the Prime Minister? The much more important question is, what is the balance going to be between worker and capital? That is the question. The question in this province is, who is going to pay the price for change? Is it workers who are going to pay the price, or is it that capital and labour are going to be made to work together so that those prices and burdens can be shared effectively?

That is the central question. The member for Ottawa West may not like to hear this. He may be so determined to defend employers and the interests of capital that he is not prepared to listen. But I say that when workers are out of pocket $25,000 and the banks and the creditors are going away with that money, there is something wrong with our bankruptcy and our severance laws in this province.

I say that when workers at 53 and 54 cannot get early retirement and cannot get a guarantee of bridging into their private plan, there is something wrong when there are pension surpluses in this province estimated to be as much as $40 billion. The member for Ottawa West may be happy with a situation where workers end up with nothing and there is a surplus of $40 billion and companies can go on pension contribution holidays, but we in this party are not satisfied with that, and those are the questions the Premier has to raise.

The hard fact is, yes, let there be a federal-provincial conference, but the Premier of this Ontario has to put up or shut up with respect to what he is prepared to do in his own backyard, in his own bailiwick and in his own province and jurisdiction with respect to steps and laws he can take himself.

He cannot simply point the finger at the federal government. I say to my friend the member for Ottawa West that if he knew anything at all about this situation, he would recognize that if Brian Mulroney were to move in the area of pensions, if he were to move in the area of severance, he would be ruled unconstitutional by a court in this country.

Therefore, the only government that can act when it comes to pensions, when it comes to severance, when it comes to notice, when it comes to shutdowns, when it comes to what happens to workers in this province, that responsibility belongs clearly and categorically with the government of Ontario.

Le gouvernement provincial a ses propres responsabilités, et il nous est tellement important de vraiment comprendre la situation. Oui, nous avons un gouvernement conservateur qui s’est engage à l’accord Mulroney-Reagan sur le libre-échange. Mais la question est : qui va payer les coûts du changement ? M. Mulroney a parlé, au cours de la campagne électorale, du problème de savoir comment gérer le changement ; ça, c’est un problème. Mais comment vivre le changement et y survivre ? Cela, c’est le problème des travailleurs de cette province.

Le grand défi pour notre gouvernement est de créer un juste équilibre de l’intérêt du capital et de l’intérêt des travailleurs, des gens ordinaires. Je dois dire que, jusqu’à maintenant, on n’a pas trouvé le juste équilibre. Maintenant, les travailleurs peuvent travailler 20 ou 30 ans dans une compagnie. Ils n’ont pas de pension, ils n’ont pas de protection. Ils sont mis à la porte avec deux, trois, quatre semaines de préavis.

Ce n’est pas acceptable. C’est ça qui doit changer. C’est pourquoi nous disons que c’est la loi provinciale qui doit changer puisque c’est de la juridiction provinciale qu’il est question. C’est pourquoi nous disons que nous avons maintenant l’occasion d’agir et aussi le devoir d’agir : le devoir d’agir de la part de nos citoyens qui seront, inévitablement, touchés par ces changements. C’est pourquoi nous devons changer les lois de cette province en ce qui concerne les droits des travailleurs, les pensions, les mises à pied et les fermetures d’usine.

Nous avons la capacité d’agir, nous en avons aussi l’obligation, et c’est pourquoi nous proposons ce débat.

Mr. Harris: The motion before us speaks to the refusal of the Liberal government to honour its responsibilities and its commitments, of “its refusal to do more than to pass the legislative buck to the federal government” and of the failure of this government to live up to its accord commitments.

The motion alludes to what we in this party see as the real emergency facing the people of this province, and that is a crisis of leadership: an emergency created by a huge majority government without an agenda, an emergency created by a government that likes to pass bucks nearly as much as it likes to tax them and that likes to spend more time trying to fix the blame than it does to fix the problem.

1540

We understand the sense of frustration that caused the official opposition to introduce this motion. We understand that it is unacceptable for the Premier to play Pontius Pilate, simply to wash his hands, give an imperial shrug and say: “It is not my problem. It is not my responsibility.”

Last fall the governing party campaigned with the slogan, “Leadership that works.” Since then, all it has delivered is leadership that wimps out.

This emergency debate is necessary today not because of the free trade agreement, not because of federal programs but because the arrogance of this government is exceeded only by its complacency and because we have a government with plenty of seats and no ideas. Every member on this side of the House recognizes that in its short tenure in office, this government has established a long record of breaking its commitments and of ignoring its responsibilities.

Consider, for example, the commitment the Premier made last year to veto free trade if it did not satisfy six bottom-line conditions. While we in this party supported the free trade agreement and disagreed totally with the Premier’s position, we fully expected after that election to see him fight long and hard to block the free trade agreement. But his commitment to block the deal evaporated along with his alleged veto and his famous no-deal conditions.

When this party was advising this government to get ready for free trade, to suit up and get into the game instead of standing on the sidelines, all the government had to offer by way of response was to wave its phantom veto: “It is the federal government’s responsibility.”

Now we find that the emperor has no clothes and the government has no idea about what to do next, except to look around for someone to blame for its own inaction. Now we find that the sum and substance of the Liberal strategy is for the Premier to advertise in the papers that he thinks it might be a good idea to hold a federal-provincial powwow on the issue after ignoring overture after overture: federal-provincial agreements, federal-provincial co-operation from the de Grandpré Advisory Council on Adjustment. Now he thinks this would be a good idea.

From our perspective, the Liberal boast, “We have done what we said we would do,” can only be explained as an exercise in partisan hyperbole or the product of a very selective memory which has allowed this Liberal government to forget a long list of unkept promises and commitments.

For instance, the motion speaks of the government’s refusal, three and a half years after making the commitment in the 1985 accord that brought it to power, to “reform job security legislation, including notice and justification of layoffs and plant shutdowns.”

Now, I confess that my party might have serious differences of opinion with our friends in the official opposition about how such measures should be brought in. However, we do appreciate why, in looking at the government record, they would feel more than a little miffed on this point. Having put the Liberals in power, they no doubt expected a better payoff than Bill 128, which completed a process started by the former Progressive Conservative government to protect workers from any negative impact caused by changes to the unemployment insurance system, the legislation introduced in June on severance pay and notice provisions that they described as “pathetically inadequate.” This is but one of a number of the accord commitments that the Liberal government made but has not kept.

We could add the commitments to broaden the political rights of the public service, to make day care a public service, to reform the appointments process, Workers’ Compensation Board reform and indexed pensions to the list of accord commitments still wandering around in limbo policy. The political landscape of this province is littered with these unkept, half-kept and half-baked Liberal commitments.

I am sure all members recall the pledge to phase out Ontario health insurance plan premiums. How about the commitment to increase the province’s share of school costs to 60 per cent over five years? That must have slipped their minds when they were writing the campaign ads.

The list goes on and on: denticare; QCs; a $300-million education program became a $60-million program; northern and small business tax credits; lower auto insurance premiums; an environmental youth corps which turned out to be a third of what was promised -- all commitments that the Liberal government has refused to honour.

As for our friends’ dismay over the Liberal government’s buck-passing, surely they recognize by now that this government is rapidly becoming a master at avoiding accepting responsibility.

Faced with a problem in health care, this government blames the doctors and the hospital administrators. Unable to deal with Sunday shopping, this government takes the chicken way out and it passes the buck to the municipalities. Now we can apparently add labour force adjustment and retraining to the list of things for which this government says, “I’m not responsible.”

If our friends across the aisle really believe, then they should wind up the Ministry of Skills Development. Why do they not just pack it in and find something useful for the minister to do with himself and for the people of Ontario?

At this rate, in a few more years the government will not be responsible for anything. Municipal governments and the federal government will be responsible for everything. The people of Ontario will be spared the expense and trouble of maintaining a government here at Queen’s Park. It might not be a bad idea, compared to what we have now.

The government talks a good game about making this province globally competitive, about retooling our industrial base and providing for a skilled and flexible workforce; but as so often happens, the reality falls short of the rhetoric.

This whole effort to lead Ontario into the 21st century is supposedly being spearheaded by the Premier’s Council and the Premier’s other pet project, the technology fund. However, the government has moved slowly or not at all in terms of implementing the recommendations made by the council itself in its first volume, called Competing in the New Global Economy, and, to my knowledge, has begun to move on only three of the 17 recommendations in that report. This is the best measure of this government’s commitment to meeting the major economic and the technological challenges that are facing this province.

The statements made by this government over the past few days make it clear it has only two items on its agenda, fed-bashing and buck-passing, and if the Liberals of Ontario believe that fed-bashing and buck-passing are going to help us compete in a new global economy, they are wrong. If they think the people in this province are going to be fooled into thinking that political gamesmanship is a substitute for policy, I say I think they are wrong. If they think they can simply wash their hands and shrug off their responsibilities completely, they are wrong. I know that we on this side of the House would be more than happy to remind them that they were elected to govern. They were elected to lead this province, not to search for scapegoats and for excuses.

Mr. Chiarelli: Why don’t you quote Don Blenkarn?

Mr. Harris: I could quote Don Blenkarn if the member wants. You know, the member for Ottawa West is a perfect example of why the MPP salaries cannot be increased, because the Premier looks around his caucus and he says, “These turkeys aren’t worth any more than we’re paying them.”

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am pleased to join in this debate. I have listened very carefully both to the remarks of the member for Hamilton East and to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) leading up to the debate and beginning the debate and, of course, to the remarks of the member from Nipissing.

I want to say in beginning my own remarks that I am simply aghast at the comments of the Leader of the Opposition when he suggested in his remarks that somehow the strategy of the Liberal Party of Ontario and of the Premier of Ontario during the recent election campaign, so centrally focused on free trade, was to play dead. Indeed, that comment was shown to be untrue last night at the very convention that the member for Hamilton East referred to when one of the leading labour leaders in this province acknowledged that his party, the New Democratic Party, simply was left at the starting gate in terms of the debate on free trade in this country during the seven weeks leading up to November 21.

1550

Mr. Gerard, director of the steelworkers in Ontario, said quite honestly and openly that it was too bad the New Democratic Party in Canada had the issue taken away from it by the Liberal Party of Canada. Indeed, in my own experience it was Liberal members in this House who were out campaigning on a regular basis trying to focus the issue on what was so central to the future of this province and this country, the terms of a trade agreement that has so very many weaknesses in it and leaves Ontario and Canada so very vulnerable.

We are indeed looking now at the prospects of a new trading environment. We in this province and in this country will be facing competitive pressures far different and far more severe than those we have faced in the past. We as a province and we as a nation must, of course, now respond because the decision has been made. The election is past. The Tories have their majority and they are resolved to pursue that agreement and to pursue it with vigour.

The question now arises as to how Ontario and how Canada should proceed. I want to tell my friends in the official opposition and remind my friends in the third party, if they care to listen, and apparently they do not, that the government of Ontario over the past three years has taken some of the most progressive steps in ensuring that working people in this province work within a regulatory framework designed to protect them, particularly in cases where plants are about to close or where there are major layoffs about to happen.

In my own ministry, we have expanded an employee counselling program to deal with cases of mass layoffs. We participate, obviously, with the federal government in joint labour-management adjustment committees. But perhaps most important, we as parliamentarians in this Legislature not very long ago passed legislation, amendments to the Employment Standards Act, that gives Ontario the most progressive notice regulations and most generous provisions in respect of severance, not of any jurisdiction in Canada but of any jurisdiction in North America. We have the most progressive and most generous provisions. Those provisions were implemented in this Legislature by this government.

As well, over the past three years we have put into place a transition program to offer assistance to older workers unlike any assistance offered anywhere else in Canada. The Minister of Skills Development will also be telling members about Ontario’s Training Strategy and what that has done to expand collectively the skills of the people of this province.

At the same time as those things have been happening in Ontario, we have been moving step by step to ensure that we have appropriate protections and assistance for workers in this province. I invite the members of this House to look at what has happened at the federal level and look at what four years of Tory government have done to the area of spending and assistance in this area throughout Canada.

The Minister of Skills Development will be telling members about the almost $1 billion nationwide in cutbacks in terms of assistance to working people through a variety of programs that have been systematically decimated and undercut in terms of the resources provided for them throughout the past four years under that government, which claims that it is interested through its Beaubien or de Grandpré commission. It expresses an interest in helping but it speaks with its budgets. Its budgets have been decimated.

At the same time as this government was putting into place provisions to ensure that workers were appropriately compensated in terms of severance when jobs were coming to an end, the federal government systematically passed regulations in the federal cabinet to undercut our legislation and to cut unemployment insurance benefits to workers who finally could take advantage of severance provisions which we passed.

In this government, now that the federal election is over, we will be continuing to ensure that the federal government changes its mind and changes its regulations so that the full beneficial effect of those regulations can be taken advantage of by the workers in this province.

Certainly, more needs to be done. In an environment where we will be meeting additional competitive pressures we need to look carefully at how we as a nation are going to provide appropriately for the adjustments that will be necessary. The New Democratic Party suggests that we ought not to pay attention to the historical and constitutional reality that income maintenance and employment adjustment have historically and constitutionally been the responsibility of the federal government.

That history is not only a history that looks to the past five or six years but right from the early 1930s, when the federal government, looking for a way to assist this nation out of the most severe depression it ever experienced, assumed power and acknowledged for the first time in Canadian history that it was appropriate for the working people of this country to have the benefit of a federal government that could apply the resources of a nation to worker assistance and employment programs that could be to the benefit of all Canadians. Since that time, we have had a rather good tradition in this country, a rather effective strategy.

It is the submission of this government that this strategy now needs to be re-examined with the participation not just of provincial governments but of the provincial and federal governments in this country so that we truly can prepare ourselves for some of the most difficult and challenging competitive pressures we as a nation have ever and will ever experience.

Our Premier has called for a meeting of first ministers to be held at the earliest possible date to begin the process of developing just such a national strategy on labour adjustment in Canada.

Il est très important, devant le libre-échange, que nous commencions maintenant à parler avec le gouvernement fédéral et avec les gouvernements des autres provinces pour déterminer une stratégie nationale pour tout le Canada, pour tous les travailleurs du Canada.

Bien sûr, nous avons des responsabilités ici en Ontario. Nous avons assumé ces responsabilités pendant les trois années de gouvernement libéral et nous continuerons à répondre aux besoins des travailleurs ontariens. Mais il faut travailler avec tous les gouvernements du Canada pour vraiment se préparer à l’avenir du libre-échange au Canada.

Mr. Mackenzie: All of the shouting in the world by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) is not going to make a case for what the government has not done in terms of the needs of workers in plant closures in Ontario. I want to point out that the time to stop the tragedy that we now face was before the free trade deal was signed. Yes, there is some validity to the arguments that we did not do the job or take the lead we should have in terms of the free trade fight in the federal election, and a lot of it was because we tried to nail the jelly that was the Peterson government to the wall on the free trade issue. It was almost impossible.

1600

In the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, I can recall our trying to get them to agree to an interest rate cut to clearly establish Ontario’s jurisdiction in certain areas to allow for incentives for new industrial development, and we could not get that through the committee.

I can recall a suggestion, probably an old one now, that maybe we should challenge in court some of those areas where Ontario’s jurisdiction overlapped the federal jurisdiction. Once again, we could not get it through that committee. We made a suggestion that maybe they should firmly say they would do what their federal leader was saying, tear up the agreement as far as Ontario was concerned, at least in terms of those areas that were Ontario’s responsibility. They were not going to hear of that. It was obvious that half the members had a lingering respect for free trade anyhow and we were getting the argument, “It’s this deal we don’t like, not the principle of free trade.” Some of them were all for that. Indeed, I have heard members in this House say that, and when you looked at the likes of Mr. Bourassa and Mr. McKenna and Mr. Decore in Alberta running around, you really had to question the legitimacy of the position.

I might say we did achieve one small point. We managed to get a resolution through, because they got fouled up in their own recommendations, which says we should give preferential hydro treatment to northern Ontario, but we have not got very far since in trying to get the government to give some muscle to that particular suggestion. I suspect we will not see it pushed by the Liberal government in this House.

We have not got action on the issue of bankruptcy and what happens to workers’ wages and getting their wages out of it. There is a plant in my riding which I have used many times as an example, and it is a rather sad one. I am talking about Consolidated-Bathurst, or Connie Bath, as it is known in Hamilton, where to this day a good number of the workers from that plant are not working. The figures are skewed, because we are told that only 25 per cent of them are still unemployed. It is not true. The vast majority of them, because they were pretty old when the plant shut down, have reached retirement age and they have just been pulled off the list. They never did get a job and they never did improve the pensions they would have been entitled to in that plant.

I can also tell members that there were a number of big articles in the Hamilton press just in the last couple of days which pointed out that their union went to bat and in a difficult court case found out those workers should have been paid another maybe $250,000 or $300,000. I forget the amount; it was $2,000 or $3,000 or better a worker. The company has fought that ever since, and here, four and a half years later, the workers still do not have that money and are nowhere nearer to getting it. Those workers who have been out of work that length of time lost in terms of their wages, their improved pensions and all it has meant to them in terms of lost jobs.

We have workers, whether it is at Firestone Canada, more recently, or Goodyear Canada here in Toronto, the Connie Bath plant, the Allen Industries Canada plant, the Inglis plant, the Arrow shirt plant -- and the list could go on and on back a year or two ago; not some of the new ones we have had more recently -- where not all of the workers are working as yet and where most of them have suffered as a result of the plant closures. The communities have suffered and the workers have suffered. The workers have suffered twofold: not only the loss of jobs, but also as a result of a drastically reduced retirement income or pension arrangement when they are ready to retire. Their golden years have been wrecked as well as their older years when they should be expecting to make some progress.

We have not seen protection for those workers. Plant protection legislation earlier, or funding bridging to allow people to retire earlier, justification legislation, things we may have fought for a long time, many of them, some in watered down form, are in the recommendations made by the standing committee on resources development Report on Plant Closures and Community and Employee Adjustment. I could go through about 10 or 12 of these important recommendations. We have not seen action on one of them in that report. I do not know what the government has really done to protect the workers in Ontario.

We are facing a lot more of a problem still. I recall well the testimony of one of the trucking company executives before our committee that he himself, going around Ontario, had been told by something like 500 branch plants that there was really no justification for their plant staying open with the advent of this free trade agreement.

I suspect that what has happened in the last few days is the beginning of a disturbing problem. Sure, there have been plant closures before this, for a long time. We have had a rationalization going on in industry for some time. In that rationalization, it is always the workers or their communities who lose; it is never the businesses themselves. They usually end up a little healthier, leaner and meaner, and they do not pay the costs of it.

We cannot seem to get through to this government that one of the things we have to do is say, “Hey, if you don’t want punitive legislation against companies, we also don’t want that punitive legislation against workers.” They have to have some protection in these situations. They are not getting it. We say we have better legislation that exists elsewhere; it is not that good. We have a long way to go right across this continent, never mind this country.

The minister’s vehement suggestions that we are doing better than anyone else do not answer any of those workers. I thought the debate that has just gone on in the last day was significant, the debate down at the Ontario Federation of Labour convention with some of the points that were being made by the delegates and the resolution that passed yesterday calling for plant closure legislation. How long have we been asking for it? I ask the minister where we have been progressing. Not very far in this House.

Improvements in early retirement and severance benefits: where are we on those? We have asked for some bridging or some arrangement to allow people to retire early. That will open up jobs. Where are we getting on it? We are getting nowhere in this Legislature. This government is the stumbling block in that area.

Where are we getting on expansion of public sector employment? There, probably, the government is now looking to go back to the old Tory route: “How many public sector employees can we cut out and what work can we contract out or privatize?” We are not seeing growth in that which has traditionally been a field that provides jobs for people who are seeing their plants closed.

We are not seeing termination notice being improved. I do not know whether that is in the minister’s plans or not, but I get suspicious of his plans that go back over a year now for the kind of legislation, whether it is safety and health or plant closure, that was promised. The Premier’s signature, as I said earlier, was on it in that accord he signed in 1985. We have not seen a darned thing done about it.

Members will forgive us for wondering where the honesty and integrity are and what the commitment was or what that word, even with the signature of the Premier and the province of Ontario, was worth.

Where are we on pension credits? Where are we on benefits and severance pay when a company becomes insolvent? That gets back to the bankruptcy situation we have talked about. Let me tell members, the Massey Ferguson workers have learned the hard way in the benefits they have lost in that plant, in the coverage they thought they had under the contract -- the health coverage, the pension coverage and the hospitalization and semiprivate room coverage, all of which they find down the drain with that particular closure.

We do not have the kind of legislation needed that we have asked for, that has been part of not only a demand from this New Democratic Party but part of committee reports the government’s own members have signed. I do not think the signature of the government’s members on a report and the series of recommendations mean a damn any more. I am sorry, but that is what I am beginning to feel in this particular House.

I think this minister can get up and do all the shouting he wants, but he is going to have a really difficult time in front of the workers involved. I hope he is down at the OFL and answers to it, because let me tell members, it is asking these questions and is dead serious about them.

Mr. Cureatz: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. Upon the occasion now that we are the third party, I find myself once again agreeing with my colleagues to the right of me, the members of the official opposition, as begrudging as it is for me to say that.

The interesting thing is, I have to say I support the resolution. Just to refresh everyone’s memory and for the moms and dads who are home listening to the replay tonight, I say to the honourable government House leader -- I know the people in downtown Kendal would be more than appreciative to me to refresh their memories -- the resolution refers to “the refusal of the Liberal government to honour its responsibility for and its commitments to working people in the area of job protection and labour adjustment.” It just says it all in a nice little nutshell.

For those lawyers who are in attendance and for those who are listening at home, that would be like the headnote of a particular case. It says it all. There might be a judge or two listening; who knows?

In any event, the point is -- and I say congratulations to the opposition party in bringing this forth -- it is embarrassing the Liberal administration. I say to all those backbenchers who are here listening with great glee that they can just be nicely sleeping away this afternoon, but they are going to be hearing from their constituents back in the riding where the action really counts.

It is not here. We know there is no action here because it is the four horsemen of the apocalypse who run everything. If I have said it once, I have said it, I do not know how many times -- twice, maybe -- the Premier, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and the House leader run everything here and the rest of them are insignificant, except maybe for the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. Elston) and the Minister of Skills Development. He is so far down the pyramid I would not even want to start looking. As for the rest of them, they are in trouble.

1610

This resolution brings it home, because indeed there are going to be one or two closings in his riding, I say to the member for Mississauga West, which I have some working --

Mr. Neumann: Now you tell us.

Mr. Cureatz: And the former mayor of Brantford over there not only cannot decide what party to belong to, but he cannot even decide which side of the House to sit on. He used to be over here; now he is over there. He used to belong to that group; now he belongs to the Liberals. I say to him that we should be looking in terms of what his government did for Massey Ferguson, or Varity, as they changed the name to down there.

The important aspect is that this resolution embarrasses the government, because it is not doing a thing so far. I tune into the radio in the morning --

Mr Mahoney: The Tory government.

Mr. Cureatz: I say to the member for Mississauga West and to you, Mr. Speaker, to have a nice little dialogue in the six lowly minutes we have, that I am not so happy about the federal administration. I do not think they have made it clear about the responsibilities or direction they are going to take. Maybe they have; I certainly do not have a working familiarity with it.

I am going to be approaching my newly elected federal member, Ross Stevenson, who of course used to be a colleague of mine here for two terms. Happily enough, he returned to the federal House and probably made a much wiser decision running federally. There he is in the lofty powers of government once again, while we are here wiling away in third place. We will not be wiling away for too much longer. We will have to wait patiently for three more years, because it is these kinds of resolutions that strike a common chord.

I remember the days of minority government; lots of days. Back in 1977 was the first minority I was involved in, and then back in 1985. There was a lot of action in this place, a lot of discussion, a lot of thinking in terms of the concerns of the people of Ontario.

Now, what do I see? I see a large, working, complacent majority government, something I have had the opportunity of partaking in a past incarnation. The Premier and the front four are sitting back waiting for events to unfold instead of taking the aggressive approach and saying: “What can we do? The Prime Minister won another majority government.”

I am even surprised and a little shocked. It is not the Premier’s method to run away and wash his hands. In the old days under minority government, he was taking the bull by the horns. He was aggressive, the new young yuppie, and he was projecting an image across Ontario that resounded of a firm, decision-making person who was going to lead us on to better days. What do we get now? We get turning tail, hiding in the corner, condemning the federal government.

As I already said, there might be a few little areas to give a whack at, but what about the people in the province? Is that the way to have co-operation in Ontario and across Canada? The people have spoken. I saw John Turner, the leader of the Liberal Party, once again, late, at 3:30 Ontario time -- I will rephrase that; Kendal time -- and he said, “The people are never wrong.”

Surely this Liberal administration can face up to that and realize the people across Canada have spoken. It is time for some co-operation. It is not time for the kind of confrontation we saw in the Trudeau years. It is time for the Premier of Ontario to sit down with the executive council and say: “Ladies and gentlemen, it’s too bad the Tories have been elected with a majority government in the federal House, but let’s get our act together and see if we can have a little co-operation. After all, we still have three years to run.”

Are we not elected here for the concerns of the people of Ontario? Should we not be approaching the Minister of Labour and saying, “Let’s take a look at some of the programs”? Let’s take a look, through the Ministry of Skills Development, and see what kinds of options we have available that can be put in place to work, I shudder to say, with Brian Mulroney. Do we not have that responsibility, as elected representatives serving the people across Ontario, to ensure that we are doing the best we can for them and setting aside, I say to the member for Sudbury (Mr. Campbell), our political partisan differences and saying --

Mr. Campbell: Absolutely, but it takes two to tangle.

Mr. Cureatz: It takes two to tangle. I do not know why I am bothering with the member for Sudbury. He is so insignificant, so far away from where the action is that I am even surprised he has the gall to speak up in these chambers.

Let me say at least to those over there close to the aura of power that there should be a spillover effect, a ripple effect, that they should be taking their jobs responsibly instead of having this negative approach. They tune in on the radio because, let’s face it, they do not hear about it in caucus. The Premier does not wander in and say, “Friends, this is what I am going to do next.” No way. They get up in the morning and tune in to CBC radio at 7:30 and find out what the government is doing. And the government is not doing a heck of a lot at the moment.

They seem to be yelling and screaming an awful lot at the federal government, and partially, I again admit -- this is the third time -- maybe there is a little bit of blame to be put there. Certainly, the member for Hamilton East, who spoke before me chastised the federal government. But by the same token, what about the members opposite? We saw and now see another typical passing of the buck.

Do we want to review the pass-the-buck approach of the large Liberal administration here in Ontario? Sunday shopping: Who has heard of that? I can hardly wait, Mr. Speaker, until it comes back into these chambers. You will be hearing from me about Sunday shopping and passing the dollar to the municipalities. What about the next round of passing the dollar, like passing the dollar and taking some responsibility on proper labour legislation, and more particularly skills development for those who are possibly going to be displaced in terms of the free trade agreement when it is finally passed?

Where else have we seen them pass the dollar? One of the crucial areas, certainly in the Golden Horseshoe in Ontario, is housing. What have we heard from the great rising star who had all the fanfare when she was elected and put in cabinet? What have we heard from the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek)? Another pass-the-dollar episode: “Give it to the municipalities. It is going to be their problem. We are not going to worry about it. Let the municipalities worry about housing and the placement of people in their jurisdictions.”

Lo and behold, there is a third one, a third passing of the dollar. Let’s bash the federal government again. The member for York Mills (Mr. J. B. Nixon) was up three or four weeks ago. I had to speak to his resolution. As a matter of fact, it was so insignificant I cannot even remember, other than the fact it was typical fed-bashing. It was housing, come to think of it. It was fed-bashing on housing. Now the government has abrogated its responsibility to work with the federal government, to put some of its own programs in. Why does it not start thinking about doing that?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I rise at this moment, after hearing all that noise; I was trying to decipher some sense from it all The wonderful member from Oshawa who just spoke I suppose made some sort of sense. I think what he was saying was that there was a great neglect in this province in the past in addressing the human resources factor. I would say it is true that I appreciate his comment from that point of view.

My colleague the Minister of Labour spoke so eloquently and so factually about the situation in the province in regard to labour market adjustment and the labour market environment as it is today. I have also heard from the members of the opposition who spoke about the needs and what is to be done, but they neglected to say what has been done, and to recognize that.

I also heard the first speaker from the third party, I think it was, who spoke about getting the Minister of Skills Development to do something that is sensible. I am extremely disappointed by that comment. Let me just go back a bit. It was this government in 1986 that put forward programs and a policy and some vision in regard to training. We set forth on a road that recognizes our most important resource in this province, our most important resource in this country: its human resource.

1620

What do we have there? We had a resource where 24 to 26 per cent of the people in the workforce were functionally illiterate. Did that come about overnight? People, of course, have a right to be literate in this society. Therefore, how then can we have a very effective workforce with such a high rate of functional illiteracy in our workforce? What we had, too, were governments, federally and provincially, that looked at immigration as a way of bringing a trained workforce into our country, into our province. When that dried up, we looked around for our own resources and found they were not as trained as we expected them to be.

We also looked at some demographic studies that have shown that our age group of 16 to 24 is declining rapidly. In the next eight years, we will see that reduced to about 20 per cent. We have a scarcity of that resource, which should be properly developed, and we should put more, of course, into our training programs.

Our Premier is on record at the first ministers’ conference talking about something that should be done in regard to labour adjustment and in regard to the acceleration of the federal government then and the federal government now to get into a trade agreement with the United States, because as it is said by the Prime Minister, “We are ready and we are not afraid at all about competing.”

But one does compete when one has the necessary tools in order to compete. Therefore, there was a squabble, Mr. Speaker, if you recall -- I am sure you do recall, as well as all the members there -- a confusion over how many jobs would be displaced at the time of the trade agreement. Some spoke about 400,000 people in Canada who would be displaced because of that trade agreement. The minister of the day, the Honourable Mr. Bouchard, agreed with us in some respects. Then the Minister of Finance, the Honourable Mr. Wilson, said it is not necessary to have any kind of labour adjustment programs in place because programs are there.

That is rather appalling. The federal government had put in place the Canadian Jobs Strategy offer of $2.2 billion in 1984, and by 1988 that had been reduced to $1.6 billion; accepting the fact that we need training for our people in this country, in this province, and at the same time reducing that amount of money. I ask the third party, which embraces all the philosophy of its cousins up in Ottawa, to come forward with that kind of money to train our most important resource.

Why do we emphasize that? We look at Japan, for instance, which has used singlehandedly that single resource, the human resource, to compete with the United States. A country that is smaller than two of the states in the United States is competing with the greatest country in the world because it has developed its human resources.

The clock ticks on here. I would like to make many more points. Both parties on that side say we are passing the buck to the federal government. Does the federal government not have a responsibility to pay its costs?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: We should spend what we have.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I hear, “We should spend what we have.” Members saw when I stood in the House and made the statement to pick up the slack, after the reneging on their apprenticeship program when they cut it back by $5 million.

What did this government do at that time? What did the Premier do? We came forward and would not see those people stand by and not be trained, and be deprived of what I would say are their rights. The federal government is reneging on its responsibility, a responsibility it has had since 1944. All of a sudden, it is capping its responsibility in regard to apprenticeship.

If you ask people if they want the Premier to act as the Prime Minister for this country, some would say no, but in the meantime we felt that ideas should come forward, that maybe if we forwarded some ideas to the Prime Minister, it might be helpful.

At the last first ministers’ conference, the Premier put forward a proposal of a Canada training allowance in which he said there are many people who would like to be trained, but that what is impeding them is income, so to speak, to access this training. When I was in attendance at that conference, I looked for my colleague, the Honourable Lucien Bouchard. He was absent. That is the type of commitment the Prime Minister of this country has in regard to training for this province.

We also saw a reduction in regard to Ontario. When we put forward our Ontario training strategy they had $552 million in 1984, and a reduction to about 32 per cent, bringing it to about $300-odd million. Is that the commitment a government should make in regard to its responsibility for training? I would say it is disgraceful.

This is a federal government that did not even want to discuss the implications we know about the trade agreement that was signed. Today, there is a call for an emergency debate, a debate in which we see criticism in respect to what this government is doing. We put in place Ontario’s Training Strategy in 1986, before this trade agreement was even signed. We know the implications. We are ready. Is the federal government ready?

Is the opposition on that side, whether the official opposition or the third party, ready to come with me to Ottawa in whatever respect they want, whether they want to write to their cousins or whether the official opposition would like to speak to their colleagues there, to get more money for training, to develop the most important resource in our province, our human resources?

Mr. Morin-Strom: This certainly is an issue that deserves the serious attention of this government. The lack of an adjustment process for industries that are retraining has become all the more imperative with the free trade agreement apparently going through the federal Parliament. The idea of this government, and this cabinet minister, standing up here today refusing to do anything about the workers whose jobs are going to be lost, refusing to do anything about the inadequacy of pension provisions, the inadequacy of severance pay, the inadequacy of job guarantees and the continuation of benefits to workers who are going to be displaced is really a farce.

This government now has its whipping boy in terms of the federal Conservatives. We have our argument back and forth between our Conservative third party members here who blame the government for doing nothing and not taking into account what the inadequacy has been in terms of federal legislation in this area, and the current Liberal government which has its own dismal record of inactivity over the past three-and-a-half years since it first came to government in Ontario.

I certainly endorse the resolution that has been put forward by my colleague the member for Hamilton East. The refusal of the Liberal government to honour its responsibility for and its commitments to working people in the area of job protection and labour adjustment deserves our attention.

1630

This government now sees the start of a process of plant closures, with two closures in Ontario over the past weekend as a result of the free trade agreement apparently going through in the next few weeks in our federal Parliament. This government has not put in place the legislative framework to protect jobs and workers throughout Ontario, a complete abdication of its commitment to the people of this province, particularly during the previous minority government.

At that time, in 1985, when this government first went into office, it made a commitment in the Agenda for Reform agreement for an item under document 3, and I will read it out. This government committed to the “reform of job security legislation, including notice and justification of layoffs and plant shutdowns and improved severance legislation.” The sum total of the activity of this government on this item during the minority government was zero. Studies are not enough. What has been done, in fact, has been a total abdication of their responsibility.

In a second area in which there was a commitment, “private pension reform based on the recommendations of the Ontario select committee on pensions,” the area of early retirement and indexing has again been left to the wind by this government.

A legislative framework on pension legislation was passed by this parliament just before the last provincial election, just over one year ago. However, the details of that pension reform were left to further committee study and this new government now, with its majority mandate, sitting on its fanny doing nothing for the people of the province, has not acted at all on the implementation of that legislation and has not brought forward provisions which will ensure early retirement protections, indexing of pensions and, in particular, the protection of pensions for workers who are working for firms that are shutting down.

Here we are facing a situation where workers are looking at their companies abandoning Ontario, abandoning Canada for the United States, and there is no protection that those pension plans will be continuing and that they will be able to bring those pension plans with them to another employer.

We have examples. I have had examples of workers who have worked for a couple of companies in Sault Ste. Marie. In particular, two of the local hotels, the Royal Hotel and the Windsor Park Hotel, had shutdowns in the last two years, and when those operations shut down, there was no assurance that those employees would be able to get their final pay from their employers or that they would have their pension plans protected. Employees with as much as 30 years of service were left with no pension plan at all.

I still have a case of an employee with one of those two firms who has over 30 years of service and has not had a ruling from the Pension Commission of Ontario yet about whether he is going to have his pension protected, in what form that protection will be and when he can start collecting on that pension.

This government has had recommendations made to it. I sat on the select committee on economic affairs, a committee which looked at the ramifications of a potential free trade agreement and which made numerous reports to this Legislature. I would note that in the final report of the select committee on economic affairs, this report that came out before the end of the last minority government, recommendations were made. A number of pages were focused specifically on the adjustment process. At that time, the committee agreed:

“Adjustment to a bilateral trade agreement will be more difficult, more extensive and more costly than any adjustment we have attempted. Numerous witnesses before the committee indicated that their industry would have severe problems in adapting to a bilateral free trade environment. Some said they would suffer substantial losses in revenue, production and employment as a result. If Canada is to engage in such a disruptive undertaking in the hopes that the outcome will be a wealthier, stronger economy, then some provisions must be made for those people, industries and communities that will suffer losses. Trade adjustment assistance is expensive, but it cannot be done without.”

Specifically, this committee recommended: “Governments, business, labour and other organizations should initiate programs to allow for the employment, training, geographic relocation and social needs of people affected by any trade arrangements.” That was the opinion of the government members prior to this agreement going through, during the minority government when we debated and held extensive hearings on this issue. They know the kinds of adjustments which are going to be needed and the kinds of impact we are going to see in terms of worker dislocation.

The recommendation at that time was that, “Governments ... should initiate programs,” and that meant all governments, not just the federal government. Now we have a provincial government in Ontario which is going to abdicate its responsibility, which is passing the buck to the federal government, saying it is solely that government’s responsibility to do something about worker dislocations in a situation where, in fact, this government knows quite well that the legislative responsibility in many of these areas is under provincial jurisdiction and it has the responsibility to act in those areas.

This government has the jurisdiction for employment standards, for labour relations and pensions. We would expect that this government would stand up for the people of this province, not sit around doing nothing in terms of what impact we are going to see in the years to come from this free trade agreement.

The government has commissioned a major new group, the Premier’s Council, which is touted as one of the real new initiatives, supposedly, in the high tech era of Ontario. What are the recommendations to come out of the Premier’s Council? In their first major report, the third of their major recommendations is on the whole area of a review of worker adjustment. That recommendation states, “The Premier’s Council should examine the labour adjustment issues of restructuring in Ontario’s core industries and work with the government to develop a comprehensive approach to meeting the adjustment needs of workers in these industries.”

Now we have a government which has been given a scapegoat by the federal Tories in terms of the free trade agreement. The provincial Liberals found it very convenient to oppose the free trade agreement in the last election campaign, and now that the Premier is unable and unwilling to live up to his commitment to stop an agreement which is going to do damage to Ontario, this government is laying all the blame on the federal Conservatives and refusing to even act on the recommendations of its own Premier’s Council in terms of the needs for worker adjustment.

Surely it is time this government recognized that it has a responsibility and a role to play in protecting the jobs and the future of our workforce. Other countries in the western world have been able to do it. The Premier’s Council study gives examples and looks at what other governments, in western Europe in particular, have done in terms of protecting workers and easing the process of adjustment to a new economy. This government has to do the same and I call upon it to do so.

Mr. Runciman: I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this important debate. I know we share the concerns of the official opposition with respect to the inaction on the part of the government. Obviously, we do not share their views with respect to the long-term impact of the free trade agreement on Ontario. We think, as do our federal cousins, that Ontario will be a net beneficiary in terms of the creation of new jobs.

There has been no dispute with respect to the fact that there are indeed going to be some losers in the province. That has been recognized by all participants in this debate about the wisdom of entering into a free trade agreement with the United States. To some extent we are getting into uncharted waters in terms of which industries might be impacted and how significant that impact might be.

There has been some concern about textiles and furniture, and some of the food product industries as well. I heard a newscast recently on the Campbell Soup Co. and the fact that a lot of the products it uses in the manufacture of soup are available through supply management systems. Of course, that has an impact on the price of their raw materials and ultimately on the price of their end product. Indeed, companies such as Campbell and others may have to look at other efficiencies that they are going to have to achieve in order to remain productive in a continental environment.

1640

I think the main thrust of this debate today is really to draw attention to the government’s lack of desire to deal with some of the very real problems that are going to be coming to the fore in the next months and years. As the previous speaker mentioned, the Premier’s Council report dealing with this issue, and I am going to quote another section of that in respect to labour adjustment, says:

“The province must be prepared to address the problems of labour adjustment in restructuring industries. If Ontario intends to assist only viable firms which fall into difficulty, it must be prepared to help the workers of nonviable firms to develop new skills and find alternative employment.” I repeat, “The province” -- the government of Ontario -- “must be prepared.”

There is no indication being given, at this stage in any event, that the Premier or the government of Ontario is prepared to take those very urgently required steps. The Premier is sloughing off responsibility; his ministers are sloughing off responsibility. He himself is acting like a sore loser in respect to the results of the federal election, like a spoiled kid.

We are used to that sort of reaction from the first minister of this province in respect to a number of issues over the years, but this is an area where I think he should be stepping back and reassessing the position he and his government are taking in respect to dealing with this critical situation.

The Minister of Skills Development spoke earlier, and naturally took the line of condemning the federal government. We are used to that. That is an old tired refrain, but it keeps coming forward. We have to take a look at what this minister has done in his role over the past 14 months as the man responsible for the Ministry of Skills Development. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is sadly lacking; sadly lacking indeed. He can get up there and ramble on, but when you analyse the rhetoric and put it under some not terribly close scrutiny, you come to the very clear fact that the ministry simply is not doing the job.

My colleague the member for London North earlier today raised a question in the House regarding the Transitions program. The fact of the matter is that last year there was $14 million set aside for the Transitions program, and what did this government spend on that program? Approximately $284,000. This year, they have reduced it from $14 million to $8 million, and what have they spent to date? Only $715,000. Now the minister has the unmitigated gall to get up in the House today and blame it all on the feds, who are not doing anything and not spending enough money.

Let’s look at what is happening on the federal side of things. They are not cutting apprenticeship funds. In 1986, they had $25 million budgeted; in 1987, $35 million budgeted; in 1988, $37 million budgeted. Contrast that with what is happening with this particular minister and this particular government. They are not very efficient, and when they do have the dollars, they simply cannot deliver the programs.

I think that there is a very serious question here in terms of the credibility of the minister and how he is able to cope with the very serious problems facing this province in respect to retraining. I want to quote from a speech that the minister made to the Conference Board of Canada on October 21, he may recall.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Great speech.

Mr. Runciman: Yes, great speech, great rhetoric; no action to back it up. “Apprenticeship must continue to gain support from industry, labour and educational institutions to meet critical skills shortages.... And we are expanding apprenticeship opportunities.”

Let’s take a look at how they are expanding apprenticeship opportunities. I will raise the issue that was raised by his colleague the member for Oxford (Mr. Tatham) just recently when he asked about the government regulations dealing with apprenticeship training programs. I have that material here somewhere; it is just a matter of finding it in this mess on my desk.

In any respect, the member got the usual kind of gobbledegook response from the minister when they were talking about the ratios of having a journeyman with an apprentice and the requirements under the act and the regulations, and the fact that this is placing severe restraints on the ability of employers across this province to attract apprentices into a variety of skilled trades.

The minister got up and gave the usual kind of answer, that this is the sort of thing we are looking at. His colleague the member for Oxford got up and said, “Well, that’s okay, but what are you going to do specifically?” Even his own colleague is frustrated with the lack of action, lack of activity, lack of any real initiatives on the part of his own government and his own minister.

Obviously, this is a major problem and the minister simply is not prepared to deal with it or does not swing enough weight in the executive council if he cannot get these rather simple, I would think, changes through. We are talking, I assume, about a regulatory change in respect to the number of apprentices who can work with skilled tradesmen.

We have letters in respect to one particular situation with Abram Sheet Metal Inc. in Sarnia. The minister should be aware of this; he responded to the leader of my party in respect to this particular case. But this has been going on for some months. I wrote to the minister myself many months ago in respect to a situation in my riding dealing with apprentices working for an electrical contracting firm.

An hon. member: And you never got an answer.

Mr. Runciman: Oh, we got an answer. But we got the same sort of answer that the member for Oxford got, that is, “We are taking a look at this situation.”

The firm of Abram Sheet Metal was in jeopardy, in terms of whether or not it was going to be able to carry on its operations under these very severe restrictions placed upon it by provincial legislation and provincial regulation. That urgent letter was brought to the minister’s attention in September and as late as a couple of weeks ago, if you take a look at his response in the House to the question from the member for Oxford, which was only about one week ago I think, he is still saying essentially the same thing.

There is simply no activity, no action and no real commitment on the part of this minister to get the job done or to deal with the very real problems that exist out there in terms of the people who are going to be facing readjustment in their lives, significant dislocation.

They are quite prepared to get up and express their concern for virtually everything. I say that people who express concern for everything are really concerned about nothing. That is the kind of attitude and approach we get from this government on a continuing basis, and it has to change.

Mr. Ferraro: It is my pleasure indeed to participate in this emergency debate brought on by the New Democratic member for Hamilton East. It is quite coincidental, I am sure, that this motion comes forward at the same time that the Ontario Federation of Labour is having its annual convention here in Toronto.

Nevertheless, it does give me the opportunity to indicate to the House my position, the position of the minister and of the Ministry of Financial Institutions vis-à-vis the pension issue and what this government is doing and what the government is not doing, as far as the opposition is concerned.

The opposition would stand up and say that there is a serious problem with pensions and that it has existed for a number of years. One can argue that yes, their concerns are to some degree relevant. But they would not say -- I did not hear the Leader of the Opposition stand up and say that in regard to withdrawals of surpluses in pensions, there is a moratorium on pension withdrawals and that moratorium still exists.

I want to alleviate the concerns of some of the people in Ontario, particularly those who are in pension funds. I point out that 40 per cent of the Ontario labour force is involved to some degree in pension funds. Nor was it heard from the member for Nipissing, a member of the third party, when he so vividly indicated his resentment and reaction to the inactivity, from his perception, of the Ontario Liberal government vis-à-vis pension reform.

1650

One of the biggest problems has to do with the fact that inflation protection in pensions is of concern and the fact that the member’s party, his government, fully indexed public service pensions in 1975, but more seriously as a consequence, did not fund it. It is a billion-dollar problem that we have to deal with and will deal with.

So it is very easy to make promises, but when they do not follow up those promises with concrete economic or fiscal responsibility, as they should have in 1975, it is left to perhaps a more courageous government to pick up the slack.

They mention pensions in the motion, and the impression could be given that indeed this government has done nothing vis-à-vis pensions. I want to point out that this in itself is a gross injustice. Most members of this House surely know that the Pension Benefits Act, 1987, was passed almost unanimously, if not unanimously -- and I stand to be corrected -- by all three parties in this House. The Pension Benefits Act, 1987, came into effect in January 1988.

I want to point out some of the substantive changes that have been implemented as a result of the leadership of the Premier of this province and my government, with the support of the opposition parties, and also to point out what we are doing at present, now that that particular act has been implemented.

What did the new act say about pensions, and force employers to deal with as a result of the passage of that act and the implementation of the recommendations in January of this year?

For the first time, full-time employees are eligible to join a pension plan sponsored by their employer after two years of service, regardless of their age. Previously, the eligibility standards were left to the discretion of employers.

Part-time employees are also eligible for the first time to become plan members after two years if they have worked at least 700 hours each year or earned at least 35 per cent of the year’s maximum pensionable earnings each year for two consecutive years. Previously, part-time employees were entitled to join an employer-sponsored plan at the discretion of the employer.

Benefits earned by a plan member become vested and locked in after two years of plan membership. Formerly, plan members were entitled to vesting after they had reached the age of 45 and accumulated 10 years of service.

Plan members now have the right, on termination of employment, to transfer vested pension benefits to other retirement savings vehicles. Formerly, few portability options were available to employees.

Discrimination on the basis of sex with regard to pension benefits and rights is prohibited. Previously, different pension benefit levels could be offered to men and women of the same age with the same length of service.

Employers are now required to fund at least 50 per cent of the value of a member’s pension benefits. Formerly, no minimum level of funding was required.

It goes on and on.

Let me point out another thing. Employers must credit employee contributions with a reasonable rate of interest. Previously, the rate of interest with which employee contributions were credited was left to the discretion of the plan sponsor.

Plan members now have the option of taking early retirement within 10 years of the normal retirement date under the plan. Previously, this option was provided only at the discretion of the employer. We changed that.

Survivor benefits must be made available to plan members and their families. That is a new requirement.

Plan members and their families are entitled to regular access to information respecting their benefits and obligations under the plan. That is a new requirement.

Plan members have the option of establishing an advisory committee to monitor the administration of the plan. That is a new option.

So we have made substantive inroads into the pension problem in Ontario, and indeed we are making new inroads.

What are some of the concerns that the minister and the government are worried about now? Investment regulation is one. Aspects of the pension benefits guarantee fund is another serious problem we have to deal with; aspects of solvency evaluation, which I am sure every member of this House is aware of and concerned about; the interaction of the Pension Benefits Act and the Family Law Act, which most lawyers will say is a serious problem; and finally, definitions and accuracy of the language. In today’s rhetorical interaction between various groups of people, it is always difficult to impress upon the average Canadian, the average worker, in simple forms the ramifications of any proposed legislation.

Let me be a little more specific. The pension benefits guarantee fund may require restructuring to determine more accurately the extent of the potential liabilities and to balance these against the assets. Experience has demonstrated the need for clarification of the act and regulations. Our goal is to preserve the fund’s financial viability while maintaining protection for employees’ benefits.

I recently, as of yesterday, had the pleasure of meeting and being briefed by Robert Hawkes, who is the superintendent of the Pension Commission of Ontario. Indeed, we are actively, as a ministry and as a government, dealing with that issue in particular, among others.

What else are we doing? In the area of investment regulations, for example, we are examining the requirement to file a statement of investment principles and guidelines as well as clarification of investment categories.

As we have dealt with, although there is a moratorium on withdrawals of surpluses, the solvency valuation issue is one that we are actively considering in order to provide an early warning, of course, of potential funding problems in a plan windup situation. Members should bear in mind that, as I said earlier, the moratorium is in effect on surplus withdrawals.

It goes on, but probably, aside from the fact that the concern is being expressed about who can get involved in pensions -- and indeed, I pointed out earlier that only 40 per cent of employers in Ontario are involved -- we are, as a government, trying actively and continuously to come up with a plan, a program whereby, in the end, we can include, we hope, all workers in Ontario.

Aside from involvement and participation in pension plans, probably one of the most talked about and written about problems is the problem of indexing of pensions. This indeed is a major policy issue for all members elected to this honourable House. Ontario could be the very first jurisdiction in North America to implement indexing. There is no other jurisdiction that we are aware of that we can use as a model, so we indeed are inventing the wheel in this regard and we take great pride in showing leadership in this particular area.

In order to ensure a thorough analysis and, indeed, in order to assist us in making sure the best possible approach is taken, the government appointed the Friedland Task Force on Inflation Protection for Employment Pension Plans to advise us on how best to address the inflation protection issue. In January 1988, the Friedland task force presented a four-volume report with 28 specific recommendations. The Friedland recommendations gave us a basis on which to start a consultation process with business and with labour.

Indeed, in conclusion, I would say it is the intent of this government to continue to lead the way as far as pension reform is concerned, and to do so in a consultative manner, including all members of pension plans, the private sector, employers and employees.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would like to join in this exercise, which is quite symbolic, perhaps only symbolic, in the sense that we all get a chance to talk and nothing will come of our ventures today. It is basically what the Liberal government has been up to for the last number of years, giving itself a lot of public relations around what it will do for workers who are dispensed -- displaced -- and not taking any action at all.

As members know, today I am suffering from a physical impediment, not having the normal weight on my upper lip that allows me to speak in some sort of coherent fashion, so if I trip over my words, I know they will forgive me. It is the first weight-loss program that I have ever been successful on, however. I just want to leave that with members.

How things have changed. During the campaign in 1987, this government talked about stopping free trade. It talked about not allowing this to go through, that it had a veto. It actually fooled the people of Ontario into believing that this government really had a veto that it was willing to exercise.

1700

David, the lion that roared, has now had his dentures removed by the federal election and has decided that he has no teeth, no powers and is unwilling to act on anything. He brings in strange little bills in a symbolic fashion to license the sale of water, to license the introduction of for-profit medicine or the increase of for-profit medicine in Ontario at a time when he can actually do something substantive and something that was promised years ago by this Liberal government to protect workers who are going to be fundamentally displaced by this wrongheaded deal that we are entering into.

He has chosen not to take any action. Instead, the ministers get up today apologizing for what they have not done, trying to embroider it as if it is somehow something workers can hold on to. We have moved, as the members will know, from having ministers of labour who merely wrung their hands and were terribly concerned and always had a furrowed brow whenever they rose in the House, to now having a Marie Antoinette of labour ministers who basically say, “That is it; that is fine. Let them eat cake. This is the Liberal cake that they will be able to digest as they lose their jobs,” and leave it up to the federal government, that wonderful, progressive federal government, to look after these workers.

Then we have the diplodocian analysis of the Minister of Skills Development, who basically tells us that it is the feds who have somehow messed up all our programs for workers in the province. I tell members that is ludicrous. The Transitions program, which I am surprised the minister did not want to expound on today, which is there to help older workers who have been displaced -- a major initiative by this Liberal government, a progressive initiative -- was budgeted for $14 million two years ago.

How much did his government manage to spend on all those workers who had been displaced? It spent $280,000. Reluctantly, I am sure, he then reduced the budget to only $8 million for this year. It is probably a wise move when he has not managed to find money that can be useful to displaced older workers in this province up to this point. How much has he spent? He has more than tripled the amount this year. Of the $8 million budgeted, he spent $715,000 to protect older workers who have been displaced.

He can attack the federal government all he wants for what it has not done on apprenticeship. The $5 million that he says he is going to spend there -- I trust that in this one area of his ministry he was actually going to do it, but he has never spent the money in terms of young people who are unemployed and Futures. He has not spent it on Transitions. Why should I or anybody in this House believe that this government is actually going to protect workers who are being dislocated in Ontario because of the impending increase in plant shutdowns that we are going to see?

I have, I guess, almost seniority within this room now, except for the member directly across from me, who has been here more years than anybody would care to count, including himself, I am sure. I remember a select committee of this Legislature that was designed to deal with plant shutdowns. I remember working on that right up to the 1981 election. Unfortunately, the then Premier, Mr. Davis, brought in that election before that report could find itself into this House, but we had a unanimous vote of that committee by all three parties.

There are members on the other side now, the government side today, who are ministers in this House today, who were on that committee, which passed motions that, unfortunately, never made it back to this House because of the call of an election by Mr. Davis, motions that called for the protection of workers who were laid off. It called for the protection and notification of workers when there was going to be a shutdown. Yet we have this government today, which has not moved on these fundamental issues even though it was supposedly in favour while in opposition, as was the Tory government prior to that time. It never moved on it, either. I remember bringing before that committee the workers from SKF in my riding. They were just the first of a large number of workers who were laid off during that last recession, when the multinational branch plants that form the base, unfortunately, of the economic industrial heartland of Ontario, closed. SKF and Canadian General Electric closed. We had a major battery plant close. We had thousands of workers in my riding alone who were displaced during that last recession.

I remember the SKF workers coming in and explaining how their company had systematically prepared itself for getting rid of the plant here in Ontario and producing the ball-bearings that we had been producing for 26 years in Scarborough, now in Philadelphia; how it had shipped out of the country all the lines it had made a profit on and kept only the unprofitable lines in this country in order to justify its closing.

I remember as well those workers saying that one of the great ironies was that the union in Sweden, the home country of SKF, was notified of the potential closing of the Scarborough plant before management in Scarborough ever learned about it. I remember all the members of that committee being shocked by that revelation and all indicating that the workers and government needed to be informed about decisions that might be made to close down a plant in Ontario so that workers could be properly protected and, if they needed to be displaced, that the proper infrastructure could be put in there to help those workers.

I say to the Minister for Skills Development that the average age of those workers was 49 at that time. Most of them were plant-skilled people with very low education, the kind of people who have followed in their thousands since, who all could benefit from a program like Transitions. Yet his government has failed to produce a program that has been meaningful for them actually to participate in. That has been a major, fundamental failure by this government.

I hate to remind this government of its obligations back in the heady days when it first took power in 1985, but it signed a document agreeing to undertake a number of legislative actions, and to one degree or another on most of those actions it moved. I can quibble with what it did on rent review and a few other things, but there are a couple of major areas it did not move on. One of them was not to address this fundamental section, which is included in the member for Hamilton East’s motion, that it would, “reform job security legislation, including notice and justification of layoffs and plant shutdowns.”

That was the government’s promise in 1985 as part of the written accord. Here we are at the end of 1988, and what is it saying in this House? Is it saying that it is going to bring it in imminently, that it is going to bring it in before this deal goes through in January as a major statement of our responsibility to look after our workers, as a major statement of provincial rights and obligations to do so? No. This Liberal government is saying, “That’s up to Mr. Mulroney, and if he moves on that kind of program, then of course we’d be willing to participate, but we are not going to show leadership here.”

So much for the change in Liberal attitudes which has taken place over the last number of years since that 1981 select committee, since its reaffirmation in 1985 of a commitment to the workers of Ontario. Today it is no different, I would say, from past Conservative governments in terms of its attitudes to protecting workers at a time when they are going to be most crucially in need. Of this I have great regret.

Mrs. Cunningham: I find it a little ironic to be standing here today discussing what should be done about the people in Ontario who will be displaced by free trade when very little that is constructive has been done right now for people who are seeking training.

I would like to make my position very clear. As we moved about in some of our schools in London and in the counties surrounding us in the last couple of weeks, we found young people are very concerned about this debate. I think the message we should be giving young people is that free trade will bring many opportunities to this province, a province that is already boasting of a wonderful economy, a tremendous opportunity. People are working and we are contributing and we should all be very proud of that.

What we are very much concerned about is that we know people may have difficulties for many reasons, free trade perhaps being one of them. In looking at the reports over the last few months as we all entered the free trade debate, we were very much pleased that different independent businesses, the trades, certainly the colleges and universities and people such as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business were smart enough and interested enough to let us know what the trends are. We saw positive trends and we saw negative trends. What this province should be doing right now is preparing for them.

1710

I had the privilege of being in England not too long ago and as I looked at the news media over there, both from the United Kingdom and from Europe, what I saw were the plans for 1992, the plans for employment, for tourism, for enticing people to visit their countries, for keeping their workforce employable and employed, their plans for skills. We ourselves in this province as recently as last September were talking about the changing needs of the workforce and what we have to do.

As I advised a group yesterday, for us to get caught up in the negative part of free trade and use it as an excuse for getting nothing done or getting very little done or for not responding to the needs out there now is a real copout for this government or for any members of the opposition who may support such a stand.

What we need to do now is plan for the next decade. We should he having programs that will help people to become employed, whether they are changing their trades, their skills, their businesses or their professions, which we know is happening now.

I suppose my greatest disappointment is that we are not doing a very good job of the programs we have now. I spoke in the House today about a training program for older workers. I heard my colleague the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) talk about it just a short while ago. What we really need to do with that program is to change it.

Yes, it is our responsibility, if we have some 38,000 workers in this province today who are not employed, who are out of work, to help them become employed. Yes, we should be reaching out and we should be not only advertising programs in newspapers and throughout the workforce, we should be seeking companies, businesses, technology, anything we can to find out where the real need is for these workers. We know there are tremendous gaps out there in the workforce and these people could be working.

What do we do? We put aside a budget of $14 million. That was this Liberal government’s election promise. It was its program. I am very suspicious when I see that $14 million being slashed to $8 million after just one year. It means a couple of things: either there is not a need for the program or the program is not effective; it is not working. We all know there is a need for that particular program, and that is the age group that we should be concerned about in the very near future.

I would urge the government members who are here now to go after the Minister of Skills Development to speak to the Premier and make certain that the money the government has right now for these programs is spent and utilized to retrain people. They should be working now.

I guess my great concern is that if the program is not working now, if we cannot get people into it and the government is not doing anything about it, whatever will it do if in fact this tremendous concern materializes and we have whole work-forces that have to be retrained?

I think we should be working on that now and I am not talking about a study; I am not talking about a paper to be released a month from now or even two months from now. We know now what we have to do.

There is another area that we should be very much concerned about and that is the apprenticeship program. We have stood in this House and asked questions about it for the last six months, the reason being that it is a program that is being utilized. But we are not certain, yet, how effective it is because what we need to do is measure it and ask how many of the 3,000 apprentices who are now enrolled in community colleges across this province, first, complete the course and, second, are gainfully employed. We have not asked those questions and we need to do that.

Because that is a program that appears to be utilized, this Liberal government says, “Even though there is a waiting list, we will not let anyone else into it, because the federal government is not giving us enough money.”

That is not the case, and it is too bad that the Premier of the province can get away with what I call misleading the public, because the federal government in 1986-87 put $25 million into this program, in 1987-88 it put $35 million into this program and in 1988-89 it gave us $37 million. They have been increasing their contribution to apprenticeship programs. I think it is so sad that we walk out of this Legislative Assembly thinking the opposite because of statements that are made.

What the Liberal government is saying is, “We need more money.” If that is a program that is working, why not take some of the money that is not being spent wisely from one program and put it into another. Far be it from me to say that older workers are less important, but the government is not going to spend the $8 million that it should have been able to spend on retraining before the end of this fiscal year. Then job retraining does become a nonpriority for the Liberal government. I will be the first person out there saying something about it very shortly; in fact, I am already.

The members in this House who stood here during the election and said that this was a priority for them are going to be somewhat embarrassed. I think our priority ought to be to get the programs up, get them going and help people.

My challenge in even making this statement during this debate today is that we accept our responsibility here in Ontario, that we be part of Canada, part of the real world as the European Community has done, that we take our responsibilities seriously, that we not pass the buck. One, it is silly; two, it does not make sense, and three, it is not a positive step at all.

The young people in the schools that I have spoken in, some four in the last couple of weeks, are simply laughing at the statement of the Premier, who says, “If people are displaced because of free trade, let the feds worry about it.” That is not a responsible position for the Premier or members of the Liberal government to be taking.

I urge the government to take a look at its own budgets for retraining now, do some transferring very quickly where programs are working, build it into the base for apprenticeships, if that is what it thinks is important and it knows it has waiting lists. Next year, take another look at the mature worker retraining program, Transitions, make it work, find the workplace that needs those employees, train them, make them feel good about living in Ontario, because that is an age group that is going to require our most thoughtful decisions around retraining and letting them be part of our world and our economy.

It has been a pleasure to have this opportunity to speak on such an important matter this afternoon.

Mr. Mahoney: It is a pleasure to rise this afternoon to speak to this issue. I want to make a couple of comments about a comment made by the member for Scarborough West, who said that no matter what we said in this Legislature today, it would have very little impact. I wonder, then, why that party is bothering to put forth a resolution under the guise of an emergency debate if it truly feels the debate has no impact on the future of this province and this country.

I would like to think things that are said by members of all three parties in this House would have some impact somewhere, if nowhere else than in their own ridings; that at least what we are doing when we agree to an emergency debate, which this government has done today, is worthwhile and of some import to this province.

I analysed the motion that is before us under standing order 37, and tried to understand the basis of the motion and where the opposition party was coming from. I came to the conclusion that a comment made by one of the members of the Ontario Federation of Labour whom I saw on the late news last night -- that in the free trade issue, “we in the NDP lost our own agenda” -- is probably a very realistic statement and probably reality.

It has occurred to me that, really, the two people who brought the free trade issue forward as an issue of national importance and debate and made sure that the Conservative government debated it and that Canadians right across this country had an opportunity to debate the issue in the school gymnasiums and the church basements and the community centres across this country, were the Premier and John Turner.

1720

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Where was Ed Broadbent?

Mr. Mahoney: The question is, “Where was Ed Broadbent?” I believe in his opening statement in the first round of fire that he laid out before the Canadian people in the federal election, the leader of the federal New Democratic Party did not even mention the free trade agreement as an issue of concern to his party. It is clear to me that the NDP members feel that they indeed did lose the agenda and that it was taken away from them by the Premier and carried on very strongly across this country and in the debate by John Turner.

I then tried to analyse why the Tories would climb into bed with the socialists, recognizing, of course, that politics makes strange bedfellows. I understand that, but I tried to analyse that too. Here we have a group in the third party, with its federal counterparts who fought for the free trade agreement, unabashedly so, who stood here in the face of concerns being expressed by members of the opposition and by members of this party, led by our Premier and, in fairness, led by the Leader of the Opposition, from the NDP’s point of view --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Don’t be fair, Steve.

Mr. Mahoney: To the member for Scarborough West, I will try to be fair. Where I have an opportunity, I will try to be fair.

They stood there unabashedly and said: “Go, go, team. We are all for free trade.” Now they stand there and say: “Okay, guys, our federal party won it. We recognize that it is a mandate across this country. Now, what are you going to do to solve the problems?” -- problems that we told them in the first place would come home to roost.

I want to take just a moment to suggest to the members opposite that this government and this party would not make any kind of statement like the one made, unfortunately, by the member for Mississauga South in the federal Parliament -- not the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) here; I should correct that -- the statements that were attributed to Mr. Blenkarn earlier. I just want to take an opportunity on behalf of the people of Mississauga, and I am sure the provincial members for Mississauga South, Mississauga North (Mr. Offer) and Mississauga East (Mr. Sola) will join me, to apologize to the citizens of Ottawa for those rather unfortunate comments. Hopefully, were a business to fail due to the FTA, or were workers to need to be retrained in the Ottawa area, I assume that the federal member, Mr. Blenkarn, was not suggesting that the federal government would ignore those people.

This government will not ignore those people, regardless of the political representation that they have in this House, and I am quite confident that we will show fairness and equity to the people all across this province.

Some of the previous speakers have asked what this government has done to deal with displaced workers and to deal with the economic wellbeing of this province. I would like to take just a moment, if I might, to talk about the Premier’s Council and its work to help the province’s economy and labour force adjust to the new economic realities that we face today.

We did not just wake up to this problem, like some other people in this Legislature, because in 1986 the Premier’s Council was indeed established to help the government develop economic strategies to meet the competitive challenges of the 21st century. In many areas of life in this province we have recognized a need to enter into new partnerships, new concepts and new thinking. The Premier’s Council brought together members of the business, labour, academic and government communities into a common forum to debate how best to ensure that our generation and future generations have access to jobs and prosperity.

The Premier established the council because he recognized that our industrial and social infrastructures are coming under unprecedented pressure. Not only must Ontario modernize its existing industrial base, which has provided much of our wealth so far, it must ensure it is well positioned in the new and emerging industries that represent the wealth of the future.

Since its inception, the Premier’s Council has developed a number of significant initiatives to help the province adjust to these changes. It has developed seven centres of excellence to improve Ontario’s research and development capabilities in key areas of technological opportunities such as space, new materials, telecommunications and information technology.

It has designated six centres of entrepreneurship in Ontario colleges and universities to help instil in students an awareness of the opportunities and challenges involved in running your own business.

It has developed a program to provide matching grants to industrial research projects involving promising new processes and technologies. It has developed a program to encourage universities and the private sector to collaborate in research projects. In fact, last Friday I had the opportunity to attend a forum at Ryerson Polytechnical Institute with attendees from the private sector and the university sector to discuss this very issue.

The council has also participated in a major review of the competitiveness of the Ontario economy. This was a massive project involving a great deal of research, discussion and analysis. More than 1,000 people were consulted, which led to the preparation of a report: Competing in the New Global Economy.

This report identified a number of major challenges facing the Ontario economy and made a series of recommendations to deal with those challenges. It recommended assistance to help our mature industries modernize. It outlined policies to help new industries grow and prosper. It recommended ways to foster a more entrepreneurial culture, perhaps contrary to the desires of some of the members opposite, and it suggested ways to improve our science and technology infrastructure.

The government has already acted on a number of these recommendations and is in the process of developing several others. It is implementing a new direction for industrial restructuring by establishing the office of the industrial restructuring commissioner, charged with assisting industries and workers to meet and adjust to the challenges imposed by technological change.

This commissioner will assess the competitive factors facing selected industries in order to avoid, where possible, plant closures and job losses. In this capacity, he will consult with organized labour and workers, management, the local and federal governments and the communities at large.

He is already reviewing two vital Ontario industries, forest products and food processing, to see what this government, in partnership with industry, labour and other groups, might do to assist.

The government has also acted on the council’s recommendation to improve assistance for research and development by introducing the R and D superallowance in the last budget. This will increase the tax write-offs for companies undertaking R and D, one of the key building blocks of competitive products and processes.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Do you write your own speeches.

Mr. Mahoney: I do write my own speeches, but I like to get my facts straight, so the odd time I go to staff in the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology to ask them if they would give me the proper information, unlike some members opposite who simply like to shoot from the lip, whether or not they have hair on it; when it does not really matter to them whether their point of view is accurate.

I find that sometimes, just once in a while, it is helpful to get the accurate points of view across that come from this government, an open, accessible government which cares about the future economy of this province.

Mr. Breaugh: I had a chance to listen to the debate this afternoon. As I watched it, I could not help but feel that we have done this before, that this House has dealt with a resolution of this nature before.

I was struck by the ironies that are here, and a word keeps coming into my mind that bothers me, because the word is “betrayal.”

There is a sense, as one listens to this debate this afternoon, that people who understand what is happening, people who should know better, have, for reasons that escape me, decided they are not prepared to accept their responsibilities; they want to find another set of excuses to do nothing. And that is sad.

Members who are new to this assembly will not perhaps have seen this before, but we have been through a recessionary period when a number of people in our ridings came to us with the very simple notion that through no fault of their own, their place of employment did not exist any more.

I recall that when we had a select committee study the matter, many members here were shocked. They had never seen people of that age group, people who were obviously folks who had done what they were supposed to do, worked very hard for a long time in one workplace and then had their life destroyed by a decision elsewhere, in Philadelphia or Miami or New York City or Sweden.

1730

Some members were struck here because they perhaps did not represent an industrial riding and did not know what that was like, did not have a sense of the destruction that is caused by those decisions. They will. That is coming their way.

I was struck again by the irony that I have heard some speeches from the government side this afternoon that are identical, almost word for word, with speeches given by members of the governing party at that time. They extolled the great virtues of their wonderful program and they laid blame on another level of government, and that seems to be the government’s first response.

One can do that -- obviously, they have done it again this afternoon -- and it works to a degree, until one has to look someone in the eye who has lost his job. Then their rhetoric, their programs and their blame-laying just do not hold water any more, because, in the end, this is a very human exercise. It is about the most basic exercise that one can encounter.

People will come to us, people we know -- not some strange statistic on a page, but people we know -- and ask us: “Why is this happening to me? What did I do wrong?” The answer, of course, is: “You didn’t do anything wrong. This is not your fault.” The terms are being floated now, by those who get well paid to come up with this terminology, things like “dislocation,” which is a nice, sanitized word for, “You don’t have a job any more.”

I notice that in three announcements that have been made since the last general election was held, there was no reason given for delaying the announcement of the plant closure until after the election; it was coincidence. On each occasion, someone who was well dressed and able to converse well with reporters had the gall to go in front of the television cameras and say, “This is just coincidence.”

Members will know -- if they do not know it now, they will shortly -- that this kind of hogwash will be perpetuated over the next little while. If there is to be a distinction made, the last set of plant shutdowns we had in this province was caused basically by an economic dislocation in the United States and it had all those ramifications back here.

When we get into that kind of a recessionary period and people have to decide whether they will keep a plant open in Alabama or New York state or Philadelphia, or close their Canadian plant, members should know that it will be the Canadian plant that closes. That is the reality that they will have to deal with.

They should know that if the free trade agreement plays out in the way that many of us think it will, it will not just be industrial workers knocking at their doors -- and rest assured that they will knock at their doors. Members can tell them about every little government pamphlet that they have in their offices; they can tell them about the wonderfulness of their government; they can tell them about how wonderful the rest of the economy is. But the workers will come back to their reality, which is that they do not have a job any more.

I think one of the things that angers me to some degree this afternoon is simply that I know there are members on the government side today who understand this clearly. There are not only members who understand what should be done, but also there are members who agreed that they should take some action to see that that never happens again.

I was one of the members who negotiated the accord with the Liberals to let them form a government. I was in the room when we discussed what type of programs should be done. I can report that there was no argument about what should be done. There was no argument that pensions had to be corrected; there was no argument that plant shutdowns had to be given notification; there was no argument that we had to do major restructuring of people’s economic lives and we had to learn how to retrain people. There was no argument when those items were made part of the accord that allowed the Liberals to form a government in the first instance.

I think that was because, among those who had been here for a while, we had gone through the parliamentary experiences that bring that stuff to the fore. We had had the debates, emergency debates like this afternoon; we had struck a select committee; we had discussed those ideas; we had identified what the needs were, and we put them on paper.

It is also ironic -- and I cannot help but mention this too this afternoon -- that during the course of the accord and the monitoring of the accord, one of the few areas where no real action took place is in this area we are discussing this afternoon. If one wanted to measure what they did of what was in the accord, there are some areas where one could clearly identify that the government initiative was a good, thorough piece of business that got done. But if one wanted to define the areas where little was done, where at the very heart of the matter there was a betrayal of the trust that was part of that accord, it was around the matters that are in this resolution this afternoon.

Now perhaps that is simply because none of us has any funny ideas that we can reform pensions easily. We do not have the notion that it is an easy thing to do. But we do know that it must be done and it has not been done. We do not have any illusions over here that somebody who is 45 or 50 years of age and is an industrial worker is somebody who is easily retrained for another position.

We know that is not an easy task, but it has to be done and the government knows it has to be done. I do not think we would be happy but we would understand if the government of the day stood in its place and said: “We know what has to be done, but it’s not easy and it’s not something we can do tomorrow morning. But we will make a financial commitment to try to do it. We accept our share of the responsibility to carry these programs out and we know now where they will be needed.”

It is no secret. I am sure this government has a document in which it has put together its assessment of the winners and the losers under the free trade agreement. If it has not got it, it can borrow the ones from the banks and the trust companies, which have all done that exercise.

There is absolutely no question about where this dislocation will occur and, in my mind, there is absolutely no question in an honest discussion of the free trade agreement that it will be part and parcel of that. The members know that it is coming. It will come in a different form this time perhaps than we have seen it on previous occasions.

I do not think it will be limited solely to industrial workers this time. I think it will start there but I think it will be broader based than that. It will be of a different nature than we have seen before, but it will come and members know it will come.

Whether or not one agrees with this government’s stance on the free trade agreement, the one thing that cannot be denied is that it has been aware of the agreement itself, of the ramifications of the agreement and of what this government should be doing now to get ready to look after the people in this province.

I do not think there is any question about that. I am not a fan of the Peterson government’s approach to the free trade agreement. I am not an advocate of what they did. But I will say this: They knew early enough that there was something wrong with this and they had sufficient lead time to put in place the programs and the spending priorities to allow for a reasonable period of adjustment. But they have not done that.

I heard members in here this afternoon take the very political line that this government was the smartest and the best and the most clever in the country in analysing the free trade agreement. Maybe they were, but that is not what will matter to the people who will sit across from their desks in their offices in the next few years.

They will look at government members and they will want an honest answer, not about their politics, not about their program; they will want to know what happens to them and to their families. I will tell them this afternoon to put away its little political flag-waving, to put away all of that rhetoric and to get ready to deal with those people honestly.

1740

Mrs. Marland: It is always very difficult to rise in this Legislature and follow the member for Oshawa, who is the only member that I am aware of in this Legislature who stands and speaks without any notes, without any references and is always so eloquent. It is not that I always agree with him, but I have to acknowledge the fact that the member for Oshawa is a very convincing speaker.

In standing to speak in support of this resolution this afternoon, I want to read into the record again what the resolution actually says, because I want to explain why, as a member of the Progressive Conservative caucus in Ontario, I am supporting this resolution.

I also want to detach myself immediately, as a Progressive Conservative, from some of the comments of the official opposition, the New Democratic Party in Ontario. I am supporting it because of the wording of the resolution. I am not supporting it because of some of their comments, which criticize our Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, and our federal government colleagues in Ottawa.

I think, quite frankly, it is time that the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States was put to rest in terms of its completion. It is very obvious that the mandate on the subject of free trade in Canada has been very well expressed by the electorate in Canada. There is no question that the free trade agreement is now a mandate to the federal House, and we look forward to the rhetoric stopping and the criticism subsiding and to getting on with the practical implementation of what will become in the history of Canada one of the most important agreements ever developed.

In rising to support this motion, I want to read what the motion says. It says that this is a motion of urgent public importance requiring immediate consideration:

“namely, the refusal of the Liberal government to honour its responsibility for and its commitments to working people in the area of job protection and labour adjustment -- specifically, in the face of two plant closures announced within the last week, its refusal to do more than to pass the legislative buck to the federal government, even though jurisdiction for employment standards, labour relations and pensions is provincial; and its refusal, three and a half years after making the commitment in the 1985 accord that brought it to power, to ‘reform job security legislation, including notice and justification of layoffs and plant shutdowns....’”

I suppose the first thing I would have to say to my colleagues in the New Democratic Party is: What else would they have expected? Surely, their naiveté would not have blinded them to the knowledge that, while their NDP members in 1985 climbed so eagerly into the throne room with the Liberals when the Liberals were crowned as the government, although they in fact had not been elected as the government in May 1985 -- I think that is something that we sometimes lose sight of in Ontario, the fact that in 1985, 48 Liberal members were elected as opposed to 52 Tory members -- the crowning that went on with that accord between the Liberals and the New Democratic Party certainly has come home to roost in terms of what now, three and a half years later, my colleagues the New Democratic members are having to face.

The reality of this motion that they have had to place today for an emergency debate only further confirms why they were naïve at best, but very much living in an unreal world, if they ever felt that all the promises that were made by this Ontario Liberal government would be fulfilled.

Among those promises, we have yet another program announced by the Liberal government which is not being fulfilled. I am talking about the Transitions program. The Transitions program was announced as an election goody on August 4, 1987, and, in fact, it was made retroactive to January 1, 1987. Isn’t that marvellous? It was not only a new program; it was going to be retroactive for that entire year. It was given a fund of $14 million and it was to help a targeted 6,500 workers. Each worker would use an average of $2,100 of the benefit with their individual credits.

The second thing was that participants would be provided with a training credit of $5,000 redeemable over a two-year period. Training could be undertaken with a new employer or an institution. A new skills training program such as this was, as they said at that time, “a further commitment to maintaining the flexible and well-trained workforce Ontario needs for economic competitiveness.”

The reality is that the Premier was charging around Ontario last year on his white horse, pulling behind it, I suppose, his sleigh of promises and misleading the people of Ontario on a number of subjects. We have now learned that in fact the fund for this Transitions program was scaled down to a mere $8 million on April 1, 1988. The reason given was that it was due to “a lack of program uptake.” In fact, that lack of program uptake as of September 30, 1988, shows that only 1,787 workers applied to the program in two years. That is rather a sad commentary when we were looking at a promise of 6,500 workers.

We were looking at a program targetted for 6,500 workers per year. Sadly, this 1,787 workers in two years is not a very good reflection of the commitment of what this program was going to do for these workers in Ontario. I think it would not take a great deal of brilliance on the part of the Liberal government to see why the program is not working.

Perhaps the basic area they should be looking at is the program delivery itself. When they look at that and they look at the marketplace where these workers could be employed in order to make it work, then it would be a very simple formula to give these people who want to work a job opportunity, because they would be trained for where the work is and what the jobs actually are.

We hear an awful lot about different bodies, advisory councils and so forth that the Liberal Premier of this province keeps announcing. Whether or not this gives him a vehicle for political appointments of his friends, I suppose, can always be discussed. I think with all the hoopla with which the Premier’s Council was announced when it was appointed -- this was to be the Ontario government’s blue-ribbon advisory body on economic and industrial strategy -- one would think with so much fanfare that the very least the Premier could do would be to listen to his own council. This same council has been advising the Premier about exactly what the problem is for these workers and what the solutions would be.

Sadly, because of the limited amount of time in this debate, I am not able to include for the benefit of the members present what exactly the Premier’s Council said needed to be done and what exactly it is that the Premier has chosen to ignore by not listening to his own council’s advice in this situation.

Mr. Campbell: I am pleased today to participate in this debate because, as the member for Oshawa so ably pointed out, I am one of the few people in this House, I guess, who has had to face someone who has been out of a job because of the economic situation.

I wish the provisions of the present Employment Standards Act had been in place when I had to face those people; had been in place in 1981 when I was chairman of the regional welfare board, with the number of people who came to my desk after their unemployment insurance benefits had run out, because this Employment Standards Act provides the best severance pay provisions in North America.

Ontario is the only jurisdiction in Canada, other than the federal one, that has any severance pay requirements at all; not only that, last year this Legislature significantly improved these provisions by expanding the coverage to include more workers in situations other than a complete closure of a company.

1750

Notice of termination provisions were also enhanced last year. Notice provisions for individual layoffs were extended. In addition, the notice requirement to the Minister of Labour was enhanced. Companies must state the reasons for plant closures or other large-scale permanent layoffs and their adjustment plans. Until this information is received by the minister, the minimum required statutory notice period for the affected workers cannot begin.

In addition to statutory protections, the province has adjustment programs to assist laid-off workers. The Ministry of Labour provides an employee counselling program that provides vocational and personal counselling to displaced workers. It is cost-shared with employers and is tailored to the needs of the affected workers in each layoff situation.

Firestone Canada in Hamilton closed last year, putting 1,300 people out of work. A very successful counselling program was established with more than 75 per cent of the affected workers choosing to participate.

At present, a similar program has been established to assist workers affected by MacMillan Bloedel’s waferboard plant closure in Thunder Bay. Counselling for the 115 employees will begin next week, well in advance of the closure date in mid-January 1989.

The Ministry of Labour also participates in the federal industrial adjustment services labour-management committees. These committees assist workers in finding jobs and accessing various government assistance programs.

In addition, the Ministry of Skills Development has a training initiative called Transitions for unemployed workers 45 years of age or older. It provides up to $5,000 over a two-year period for training costs incurred by these individuals.

The industrial restructuring commissioner, Malcolm Rowan, has been active in northern Ontario with regard to the forest products industry and its rationalization, to ensure a solid future for this important northern Ontario sector. A national strategy to ensure adequate adjustment measures for this worthwhile industry will be an essential complement to such provincial programs.

I want to talk a bit about the adjustment program and some of the history behind it because I think it is important that --

Mr. Laughren: Well said. I’m on Sterling’s side.

Mr. Campbell: When the member says that, I think there is a lot of agreement in the proposals and some of the programs this government has initiated.

Mr. Laughren: Wait a minute now. Don’t push it.

Mr. Campbell: I will not put words in the mouth of the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren). However, if he was here for the first part of the speech, he would realize that some of these initiatives were not there when Sudbury was going through its difficult times, and I think they would have helped with a lot of the things that happened in 1981.

The adjustment program was developed in 1981 partially because of the economic situation we were facing. The plant closure review and employment adjustment branch, in conjunction with the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, was to provide employees affected by permanent job loss, especially due to plant --

An hon. member: Sounds like a Jim Gordon speech!

Mr. Campbell: That is a little much; surely the member would not really mean that -- due to plant closures, with professional vocational counselling assistance such as skills assessment, job search techniques, access to retraining and pre-retirement counselling.

The adjustment program focuses on assisting groups of employees affected by large-scale cutbacks and closures, usually 50 or more employees, though smaller numbers are assisted in special circumstances such as single-industry communities. At that time, in 1981, a single industry was really being affected by the economic situation in our country and in our province and was especially hard hit in northern Ontario.

Our community in Sudbury had to come up with a lot of its own solutions for some of the programs being dealt with today, precisely because of our community’s initiatives in the regional chairman’s committee to see that this kind of thing did not happen again, because some of these programs were not in place until now.

Had we had those programs in place, I think a lot of the things we had to deal with we would have had to deal with in a less serious manner. But today we are seeing a lot of the results of some of those initiatives -- the Ministry of Labour’s wire rope testing plant coming to Sudbury, for example -- and dealing in very important means to diversify the economy. With this kind of program, had it been in place, it would have been easier for us to deal with those kinds of dislocations.

The program involves both group and individual counselling offered in modules, before or after termination. The basic module, which consists of skill identification and transferability, planning and decision-making, resumé writing and job interview skills, requires 18 to 24 hours. Other modules, such as understanding the emotional impact of job loss, retraining opportunities, starting a small business, financial planning and retirement counselling, may add 12 or more hours to the program time. Each program is tailored to the needs of the employees involved.

Programs are normally delivered by counsellors in the colleges of applied arts and technology in the areas in which the closures occur. The industrial adjustment service of Canada Employment and Immigration and the employment adjustment branch often work together in these situations. While the IAS establishes adjustment committees that handle placement, the program prepares employees for the work of the committee, since those people who have made informed decisions about their futures have marketable resumés in hand, have sharpened their job interview skills and are more likely to succeed in obtaining new positions and in impressing employers enough to be interested in hiring other displaced workers.

These programs are cost-shared by the employment adjustment branch and the employer. In insolvent situations --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Stop ad libbing.

Mr. Laughren: Write your own speeches.

Mr. Campbell: I did write my own speech. This is good stuff. Members have to go along with it here.

Mr. Villeneuve: Jimmy Gordon helped you.

Mr. Campbell: No. That is the second reference that has been made to the former member for Sudbury and I can honestly say I am sure that was not the case.

Mrs. Marland: I want Jimmy Gordon back.

Mr. Campbell: Oh, you do? Well, there are others who would disagree, however.

In insolvent situations, the branch assumes the total cost. Accessibility of the program to employees is an important issue. Therefore, not only is there no cost to participants, but when program delivery is outside of work hours or after termination, they are also reimbursed if they incur additional child care and transportation costs by living more than 25 kilometres away.

Although some other jurisdictions have provided job search seminars for employees in specific plant closure situations, to the best of our knowledge, there are no other established programs such as ours in North America. Other jurisdictions have expressed keen interest in our expertise and the material we have developed has been used in five other provinces.

Clearly, then, the Ontario government is active in providing both protection and adjustment assistance for workers facing layoff, but it was also clear to the Minister of Labour, as he said earlier, that there is a need for a national strategy to ensure the increasing pressures of a free trade agreement are adequately met.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I found the speeches today very good and exceptional. It was an important debate and an important motion that was put forward. I seek unanimous consent to extend the hours and carry this on for another hour or so, if members are so inclined.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): We do not have unanimous consent. The time allotted for this emergency debate has now expired.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

29 novembre 1988