The House met at 1332.
Prayers.
MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
ACCESS TO CHILDREN IN CUSTODY
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): The Attorney General will know that I have shared with him stories of a number of people from my riding who, despite being granted visitation rights by the courts, are still unable to access their children: people like George Lloyd who, despite having been accorded access rights, has not seen his daughter in five years.
The Attorney General has not taken a stand on the question of access for non-custodial parents. What he has done is set up some pilot projects which will allow the parents to visit their children in supervised facilities. These centres do absolutely nothing for the parents who do not know where their children are.
The simple fact is that the court orders for access are rarely, if ever, enforced. The Attorney General knows that when he came into office, Bill 124, An Act to amend the Children's Law Reform Act, had only to be proclaimed. It was passed by the Legislature and it would have meant greater access for parents like Mr George Lloyd and others.
It appears that the Attorney General does not care about assisting parents in accessing their children. When will he take some action to recognize parents' rights by addressing this injustice?
HIGHWAY WIDENING
Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Once again I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Transportation the critical situation that continues to exist on Highway 6 between Owen Sound and Guelph in my riding of Wellington.
As the minister is aware, this stretch of highway is heavily travelled, especially in the summer months when much of the cottage-bound traffic passes through. Highway 6 is also the main corridor to Highway 401 for most of Wellington county, so there is a high volume of commercial trucks utilizing the highway.
There is an urgent need for passing lanes on this section of Highway 6. This issue is an important one for my constituents, so important that it was the first issue which I raised in the House after my election. I made a statement on November 26, 1990, to emphasize to the minister the important safety considerations attached to the need for passing lanes on this particular section of Highway 6.
The construction of passing lanes would also encourage economic growth in our area, since all manufacturers which have expressed an interest in locating in Wellington county are particularly concerned about efficiently moving their products to the marketplace.
As a result of my request for action on Highway 6, the former minister wrote to me in January 1991 to advise me that the passing lanes for Highway 6 would be included in the ministry's five-year construction program. This is not satisfactory to me or my constituents.
Safety and economic factors warrant immediate construction of passing lanes on this section of Highway 6 to help alleviate the traffic congestion and facilitate more efficient movement of vehicles. I urge the minister to announce a definite date for such construction as soon as possible.
WASTE MANAGEMENT
Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise today to inform my fellow elected representatives of a very special coalition of citizens groups, the Ontario Toxic Waste Research Coalition. The coalition is made up of seven separate groups: the Niagara North Federation of Agriculture, the Niagara Peninsula Fruit and Vegetable Growers, the Concerned Citizens, the Niagara Residents for Safe Toxic Waste Disposal, Citizens for Modern Waste Management, Preservation of Agricultural Lands Society and the Elcho Study Group.
These groups banded together as a coalition in January 1986 in order to collectively oppose a proposal by the Ontario Waste Management Corp to build a giant toxic waste facility in the township of West Lincoln, in my riding. In total, the coalition represents over 3,200 citizens in Ontario. Its mandate is simple: to stop the OWMC proposal. It believes that the technology being proposed is out of date and that such a facility should not be built anywhere in Ontario.
The coalition is a full participant in the ongoing environmental assessment hearing that is looking at the OWMC proposal and it represents the interests of the citizens without any political bias.
The coalition is a fine example of the general public banding together to fight for what is right. The member groups and the people who belong to them should be proud of the valuable contribution they are making to help improve our environment and to help ensure that Ontario does not make a mistake by allowing an outdated facility to be built.
COURT STAFFING
Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Mr Speaker, my statement today is directed to the offices of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General.
This is a government that tries to build its reputation on consultation, but it's just not happening. Last Friday the Kenora courthouse was without two judges. Both Judge Little and Judge Frazer refused to sit, the reason being a lack of security at the courthouse. Additional holding cells were added to the courthouse but they do not have direct access to the courtroom. As a result, prisoners must be escorted back and forth between the courtroom and the holding cells. Of course this requires additional staff.
These security problems and the need for the additional staff were never discussed with the local police commission, which as you would know is responsible for the staffing of the courthouse. Nor has the government provided further financing to the municipality to deal with the added security risk brought about by the new facility.
Kenora councillor Chuck Tyrrell, vice-chairman of the police services board and chairman of the town of Kenora finance committee, said the board knew about the cell changes but was never consulted; therefore no staffing increases were budgeted. The board recently voted to hold staffing to its present level at the courthouse.
This issue was brought to the attention of the offices of both the Solicitor General and the Attorney General last May. To date the commission has not received a response from either ministry.
NORTH YORK BOARD OF HEALTH
Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): On November 28, 1991, I brought to the attention of this House the funding inequities faced by the North York board of health. You will recall that health units outside Metropolitan Toronto receive a provincial grant for 75% of their budgets. The North York board of health currently receives a provincial grant for only 40% of its budget. The province has yet to act upon this inequity.
Today I would like to bring forth another funding problem faced by the North York board of health. The board is faced with a financial crisis. To meet this crisis, the North York health department has already reduced its budget by nearly $1 million through staff reductions and cuts to its immunization, AIDS awareness and family planning programs.
Mr Speaker, 20 North York schools are without an assigned public health nurse. Furthermore, assessments of children's immunization records, which is required under the mandatory program of vaccination for preventable diseases, will be restricted to 70% of the required total unless the board receives additional funding.
The provincial government has continued to spend at almost 5% the rate of inflation while it has asked organizations such as the North York board of health to limit their spending to a 1% increase. Certainly, demands such as these demonstrate this government's double standard.
1340
ONTARIO HYDRO RATES
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Proposed hydro rate increases may severely impact the Niagara Falls economy. My constituent Michael Saxton, who is an hourly paid labourer at Norton Co and who has just purchased his first home, wrote to me:
"Since electricity is such a large part of our production costs, we work on off-shifts and weekends, when the rates are lower. Further increases in rates will only result in higher production costs, thus hurting our ability to compete. If we can't compete, we will close."
Yes, I know Ontario Hydro is helping industry to be efficient; yes, off-peak power rates are helpful; yes, Ontario Hydro has frozen executive salaries; yes, power supply is reliable; and yes, I know this major rate increase is a result of ill-conceived, inefficient and reprehensible decisions by Tory and Liberal governments which led to outrageous cost overruns at Darlington.
All true, and yet this government faces the reality of today. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary and creative measures. Rate increases need to be examined now in the interest of jobs. I will do whatever I can to facilitate communication and cooperation between workers, industry, government and Hydro.
I thank the Minister of Energy and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology for meeting with us over the past two months. Other governments would not act. If any government can make Ontario Hydro more efficient and responsive, it is this government.
LABOUR LEGISLATION
Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I rise today to share with the House a letter I received from Vazken Terzian, director-administrator of Servocraft Ltd, which is located in the riding of Oriole.
Mr Terzian asks me to "do everything in your power to get the NDP/union leadership to realize the harm they are doing to the construction industry through labour relations legislation." He says the NDP labour legislation is already having a negative effect on the construction industry. He goes on to say: "In May there were 79,000 unemployed construction workers with 25,000 in Metro Toronto alone. The Laughren budget chopped $112 million in capital," and further the NDP rent legislation is costing more construction jobs.
Mr Terzian states that people in the construction industry understand the political pressure placed on the NDP caucus to bring in changes to the Labour Relations Act that are favourable to organized labour, but they don't understand why the NDP leaders have failed to see that the construction industry is already severely depressed and their proposed legislation will add to the ranks of unemployed construction workers and deepen the despair of their families.
Mr Terzian's letter is just one more example of thousands of concerned Ontarians. He wishes to "avoid any further devastation and unemployment," and I would like to quote him when he says, "Anyone voting for this legislation is no friend of the workers in construction" in Ontario.
MEDICAL LABORATORIES
Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My caucus colleagues and I are extremely concerned with the Minister of Health's treatment of private laboratories. The supplementary budget paper on health care resources indicated that the program review for laboratory services will focus on the promotion of public hospital and public health labs.
We find it inconceivable that these decisions have been made without any consultation with private laboratories and that this NDP administration has rejected offers of assistance in cutting costs from the association representing private medical laboratories. All indications are that the Minister of Health has predetermined the outcome of this review.
I fail to understand how the minister can expect service providers to believe in consultation and partnership when such glaring biases are evident. Sunnybrook Medical Centre's management information system has demonstrated that it is far more expensive for hospitals to do the tests rather than the commercial sector. This has been demonstrated in a number of tests, including complete blood count, fibrinogen, electrolytes, urea, urinalysis and differential.
The question looms, why is this NDP administration willing to promote a more expensive service provider instead of a less costly service provider where the quality of service is the same? I encourage the Minister of Health to take a close look at the Sunnybrook findings before proceeding against the private laboratory sector.
PAULINE JEWETT
Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding figure in Canadian public life, Pauline Jewett. As members know, Ms Jewett passed away last Sunday after a three-year battle with cancer.
Pauline Jewett was a leading feminist, academic and politician. In many areas of her life she was a groundbreaker. In politics she was a role model for women who were interested, as she was, in participating in making public policy but who found many barriers to such participation. As an academic she was also a pioneer. In 1960 she was the only woman among the five faculty members in the political science department; the other faculty members recommended her to head the department. In 1974 she was made president of Simon Fraser University, the first woman to hold such a position in Canada.
In recognition of her outstanding contribution to our public life, Pauline Jewett was one of 22 distinguished Canadians who were named to the Privy Council of Canada on July 1 of this year.
She started her political life with the Liberal Party, running for the first time in 1962. With other female politicians of the time, she was a curiosity. When she approached Lester Pearson in 1965 about a cabinet appointment, she was told, apparently without a shred of irony, "I already have one woman in cabinet." In keeping with her earlier political sentiments, Pauline ran in 1972 as a New Democrat and from then on was a role model for other females in our party. She was a well-respected, well-loved member of the federal caucus and acted as a mentor to numerous up-and-coming politicians. This is only one part of her legacy.
For all of those men and women, especially women, to whom she was a role model, I say Pauline Jewett will be deeply and sadly missed.
STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY
GUELPH CIVIC CULTURAL CENTRE
Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): It is my pleasure to rise in the House today to announce that the Ministry of Culture and Communications will play a key role in the development of a dynamic new cultural centre in Guelph, Ontario.
Using an allocation to the ministry under the Jobs Ontario Capital fund, we will provide $2 million over the next three years towards the construction of the Guelph Civic Cultural Centre. The project will create 200 jobs.
The fund is part of this government's Jobs Ontario initiative, which was announced in our April budget, to help renew the economy. Under the capital fund, the Ontario government will spend $2.3 billion on creating jobs over the next five years. The city of Guelph, local businesses and the federal government are also making substantial contributions to the centre.
The centre will provide vital facilities for performing arts organizations and for community groups. It will complement the Guelph Spring Festival, already one of Canada's most outstanding classical music events. It will attract new tourists and new businesses to Guelph and, in doing so, help revitalize the downtown core, and it will create new jobs in the community.
We wish to salute the people of Guelph, and in particular the Citizens' Committee for the Guelph Centre for the Performing Arts, for building the partnerships needed to get this project under way. We are delighted that the government of Ontario has helped the people of Guelph invest in their own community and in the province of Ontario.
Despite these tough times, this government is committed to renewing our economy through job creation and through investment in Ontario's culture. We understand the importance of a thriving arts sector to the social and economic wellbeing of the province. Today we are able to show that commitment through this $2-million grant.
This is wonderful news for Guelph, for the cultural sector and for all Ontarians.
1350
RESPONSES
GUELPH CIVIC CULTURAL CENTRE
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'd like to respond to the statement in two areas.
One is in the general area where the minister makes the comment, "Despite these tough times, this government is committed to renewing our economy through job creation and through investment in Ontario's culture." I've said several times, when this government announced this Jobs Ontario strategy, that it's time to come clean with the people of Ontario.
The minister should have acknowledged that on page 86 of the budget, the Ministry of Culture and Communications capital budget, the money for these job creation programs, last year was $31 million. This year it's $15 million, cut in half. We're not saying spend more money. We're saying come clean with the people of Ontario. Stop saying one thing and doing another thing.
Again, I've said to the Treasurer on this capital area -- he talks about job creation and the budget -- that the facts of the matter are that there is less money in this year's budget on capital programs than there was in last year's budget. Don't try to fool the construction workers of this province by announcing that you are increasing spending. That is simply not the case. When this government came into power there were 343,000 people working in construction in Ontario. At the end of May there were 249,000. Virtually a third of them are now unemployed.
Furthermore, in terms of this Jobs Ontario strategy, as I said last week and I'll say it again, the only new job that's being created with this is by recruiting a new advertising agency. When we're in tough economic times, why is the Treasurer allowing the government to go out and recruit a brand-new advertising agency to announce spending less money than you were spending last year? It is a fraud.
I saw in the Globe and Mail last week:
"The government of Ontario is seeking a full-service advertising agency to provide creative service for the public information activities associated with its Jobs Ontario economic initiatives. To handle this assignment, companies must demonstrate they have the personnel, technical and administrative resources in place to provide highly innovative and creative services to support this initiative."
Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): What would you do?
Mr Phillips: I'll tell you what we would do. The Treasurer asked what would we do. We would go ahead and spend the capital money you have allocated, but we would not be doing a public relations exercise wasting the taxpayers' money. Every day we see one minister come in here and announce a capital program, wasting taxpayers' money. Get on and create the jobs, spend the money that's in the budget, but don't try to say something that isn't true.
You are trying to leave the impression with the constructions workers of this province that you're spending more money. The Minister of Culture and Communications cut literally half the money out of the capital budget and then dribbles back this sort of money and leaves the impression that this is a job creation program. We say to the government come clean with the people. Don't try to present something that is simply not the case. I hope the members of the caucus who aren't in cabinet will start demanding that of the cabinet ministers, that we not try to mislead the people of the province.
On the specific announcement, because I was talking generally about the jobs programs and raising the concerns we have, I hope -- and the minister has made this announcement today -- that this agency, this organization has some assurance from the minister that the operating funds necessary to keep this program going will be available. The worst thing you could do, Minister, is to provide the capital funds, raise expectations and then find that the operating funds are not there to operate this program. That is the worst thing you could do.
I hope that there's been a thorough study with the important local group and that it is assured the government will provide the necessary operating funds. If that's not the case, I hope the minister has some serious discussions with them so that they understand exactly what financial commitments the government's prepared to make.
The Art Gallery of Ontario, as we all know, closed its doors, I guess merely a week ago, shutting off one of the best tourist attractions in this province because it didn't have the operating funds. I hope that in this announcement the minister has looked at the operating funds and that we aren't going to put this community group into the same jackpot that AGO has now found itself in.
Finally, I appreciate that the minister has said there is full support in the Guelph community for this program. I certainly hope that's the case. I understand there are at least some organizations there that want some more assurance on the program and I hope those assurances are forthcoming.
Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm pleased to respond on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party to the announcement by the Minister of Culture and Communications this afternoon that there's going to be $2 million in funding towards the Guelph Civic Cultural Centre, creating about 200 jobs, as the minister has indicated. But this announcement has to be looked at beyond just looking at it in isolation, as the minister has indicated.
Yes, perhaps jobs will be created in the short term, but we must recognize that construction jobs that are created by government spending are inherently short-term jobs; they're not long-term jobs. The government is responding in this way of course because its anti-business rhetoric, its anti-business policies have destroyed job creation in the private sector in this province and it's forced to respond with taxpayer-generated jobs that are again short-term.
I think if you also look at this announcement and other announcements the people of Guelph and Wellington county would have been looking for today, they would have liked also to have seen an announcement on the hospital funding and assurance that the ground is going to be broken this summer with respect to the development of the new hospital. I think that's an important issue as well to the people of Guelph.
I know, representing the riding adjacent to the city of Guelph and all around it, the outstanding importance of the Guelph Spring Festival and many of the other cultural attractions the city of Guelph has, so this announcement is obviously concurrent with what they have to offer there, but we also have to look at the broader perspective across the province.
We look to the Art Gallery of Ontario, as has already been mentioned, and the $2.6-million cut in funding to AGO, which has necessitated its closure this month until January 1993. Of course the Art Gallery of Ontario plays a very important role in community outreach and making programs available across the province, exhibition events and that sort of thing, to allow community galleries around the province to have new exhibitions in a timely way. We know if that gallery is closed, art galleries across the province, such as this civic cultural centre, will have a great deal of difficulty in bringing forward new exhibitions in ways that would attract people, so that is also a concern.
I don't want to take the full time with respect to my response to this announcement, but I must say that this appears to be another cynical attempt by the government to demonstrate that it is creating jobs when in fact we have seen thousands and thousands of jobs in Ontario that have taken flight and entrepreneurs who have fled this province because of the policies of this government. In the context of that climate today, we find this announcement is not good news and is most disappointing.
ORAL QUESTIONS
LANDFILL SITES
Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Mr Speaker, given the size of the demonstration outside our doors today, you will not be surprised, sir, that I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. I tell the minister that she is very quickly gaining the reputation of being the most stubborn, the most arbitrary and the most inaccessible minister in the province's socialist labour government. Her Bill 143, which makes her the czarina of all garbage in the greater Toronto area, which gives her the exclusive authority to tell the people of the greater Toronto area where Metropolitan Toronto's garbage is going to be dumped, has started the kind of political and citizen reaction we have rarely seen in this province.
I want to ask the minister, what is it going to take to get her to change her mind? Is it going to take another demonstration of 1,000 people on the lawns of Queen's Park? Is it going to take even more citizens' groups meeting by the thousands right throughout York region and the greater Toronto area? The editorialists not only in local papers but in regional papers and in papers all over the province have said that her policies in Bill 143 are wrong. The environmentalists say that she is wrong. No jurisdiction in the world is approaching the garbage problem in the way in which she has approached it.
I simply want to put it to the minister: What is it going to take to get you to change your mind, to withdraw Bill 143 and start us down a path which will really solve the problems we have in the disposition of garbage in the greater Toronto area? What is going to take?
Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): I regret the presumption in the member's question that large rallies of people -- and I know that people rally and that people feel very strongly about this issue -- are the way to change public policy.
I would remind the member that Bill 143 was introduced into this House, was debated in this House and was the subject of hearings before a committee across the province. When he says it was not supported by environmentalists, I'd ask him to go back and check the record on that debate, because that legislation which puts in place the mechanism to do serious waste reduction, reuse and recycling within the greater Toronto area, as well as spelling out how to find landfills, is very progressive legislation and is widely supported by people all across this province.
1400
Mr Sorbara: I reiterate my point about stubbornness. There is no question about the 3Rs; that is not the subject of this issue and this debate. The subject is Ruth Grier's determination, made privately and without consultation, to make York region the site and the only site for dumping garbage from Metropolitan Toronto, and she knows that full well.
If she will not repeal the bill, I simply say to the minister that there is an opportunity within Bill 143 to solve this problem. Bill 143 does not prohibit the Interim Waste Authority from considering other sites elsewhere in the province, and it does not prohibit the IWA from looking at other solutions and other technologies. What this province needs is one word from Ruth Grier, the Minister of the Environment. She holds the key: One word from her, and the IWA will have the authority to pursue other sites and other technologies and really get at a solution. Will the minister simply utter that word and allow the Interim Waste Authority to look at a variety of solutions instead of picking on one region which is one neighbour of Metropolitan Toronto as the site to dump 40 million tonnes of garbage in the backyard of Metropolitan Toronto? That won't work. We need one word from you and we can start to solve this problem.
Hon Mrs Grier: In the first question, the member accused me of making a decision arbitrarily and behind closed doors. In the second question, he's asking me and attributing to me the power to arbitrarily and with one word change a piece of legislation. I can't do that, even if I felt it was in the best interests of the environment to do so.
Mr Sorbara: It's ironic that the minister has not even read her own piece of legislation. Look at the legislation, and you will see no prohibition. The legislation states clearly that the Interim Waste Authority is not required to look at other sites or other technologies, but the legislation clearly permits that and it's only a policy statement from the Minister of the Environment that is prohibiting that.
She makes light of this problem and says it is a crisis created by the previous government. I submit to you, Mr Speaker, that the only crisis we have on our hands is the policy that the Minister of the Environment is following. She says there is going to be a full environmental assessment once the one York region site is identified.
I want to ask the minister whether she still believes in a fair hearing process and what she plans to do once that hearing is completed and the citizens of this province win the hearing and the site is rejected by the board that is going to hear the application. What is the minister going to do under those circumstances, or has she already put the fix in to make sure that the board rules in her favour and against the people of York region?
Hon Mrs Grier: I'm glad the member acknowledges that the final decision will be made by an independent, objective board, the Environmental Assessment Board. Far be it for me today to prejudge what their decision will be.
Mr Charles Beer (York North): My question is to the Minister of the Environment as well. Minister, over the course of the last number of weeks, all of us in York region have been attending a variety of public meetings. We've had the second demonstration now. At demonstrations, people arrive with their hats, with their placards, seeking some way to get the attention of the government, to say, "We don't want you to use this particular approach."
The question that arises at every meeting, the question that arose at the demonstration today, Minister, is why: Why have you arbitrarily decided that the region of York shall take all the garbage from Metropolitan Toronto? What people in York region want to know, very simply, is why.
Hon Mrs Grier: I think I've answered this question innumerable times, but I know it is one that concerns the people in York. The fact is not that they don't know my answer but that they don't like my answer, but let me try the answer again.
The answer is that waste management in this province has traditionally been the responsibility of municipalities. Municipalities seek solutions within their boundaries or make an agreement with an adjacent municipality, as have many and as do most, to resolve waste management issues together.
In 1983, Metro and York arrived at an agreement that a landfill site would be established in York to look after Metro's and York's waste. That site was filled to capacity much sooner than anybody had anticipated because there was no emphasis on waste reduction, reuse and recycling. What we have done is put that emphasis into our policies and continued the agreement between Metro and York.
Mr Beer: That answer is simply not acceptable. There is no agreement on the part of York. The question remains that in that legislation you arbitrarily decided that's where it should go, and people simply say, "No, that's not fair, it's not equitable and it makes no sense."
My second question to the minister is another one around "why." The minister likes to present herself as being a strong defender of the environment. Indeed, she says she refuses to look at other options and alternatives because she feels so strongly about the alternative. The question that comes from all of us in York region is, how is it environmentally sound, environmentally progressive, in the 1990s to suggest that we should be creating a dump not the size of Keele Valley but half again as big, a dump that will be 130 feet high, a dump that could take 80 SkyDomes? How on earth in the 1990s is the outhouse technology of a megadump environmentally sound and acceptable to this government?
Hon Mrs Grier: What is acceptable and what is environmentally sound is that we try to reduce the amount of waste going into that site as much as we possibly can. I was interested today to get from some of the people who were at the demonstration, I understand, Citizens for a Safe Environment, a press release being very hard on Metro and York for not having taken seriously the policy established by your government of trying to get to 50% reduction by the year 2000. That's what has to happen, and when that happens perhaps we won't need the size of landfill you're suggesting.
Mr Beer: Clearly the people in York region, the people who were out at that demonstration today, include some of the strongest environmentalists in this province. I could mention parts of the region, I could mention names, I could mention mayors and municipal councillors who have fought very hard and indeed urged us as a government to do more for the environment. They are outraged at the possibility that there will be a dump in York region.
My final question is to the minister. Will she, here and now, today in this place make a firm commitment that over the next two weeks she will find some real time to sit down with the representatives of all the different community groups and organizations that have grown up around these sites, to meet with them and have a full discussion, where they can put their questions to her? Will the minister make that commitment here and now?
Hon Mrs Grier: I already made that commitment when I met with the groups a week or so ago. They indicated that they were coming together to form a coalition and would have a representative from each of the 57 groups, I think they described it, in one organization. I said when that had occurred and when the representatives had identified themselves and the leadership of the various groups emerged, I would be happy to sit down and have that discussion.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question, third party, the member for Markham.
1410
Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The people of the greater Toronto area are angry; angry for a number of reasons at Bill 143, angry at the way this government is forcing dumps into the greater Toronto area but angry as well that this minister has not been prepared to meet with people in a way that would allow them to have dialogue.
I have instead for you today some of the slips that people have sent in from the Economist and the Sun where people are saying no to unacceptable dump sites in York-Durham. We have also a little present from students at Unionville public school to Mr Rae and yourself, along with some of the thinking of people in that area.
The concern they have, among many, many others, is that you and your government are not prepared to sit down and listen to the people. So instead of having it your way alone, I would like to extend an invitation to you to visit the 57 landfill sites in York, Durham and Peel so that you can see something of the problems that are going on there. What I will make sure will happen is that you will be treated with respect, as you should be, but the fact is that you will go out and see these environmentally sensitive areas, these farm lands, these areas that people are so concerned about. Will you accept this invitation to come and tour the sites?
Hon Mrs Grier: I regret to have to say to the member that I think he does nothing to help the situation by describing 57 landfill sites. There are 57 areas of the greater Toronto area which, after the development of environmental criteria and the application of those criteria to the area, have been identified as possible candidate sites. That number will be reduced to three by next year. It is important that people understand that there will not be 57 landfill sites throughout the greater Toronto area.
As I said in my response to the question from the member for York North, when the groups have been formed and have identified who they want to have as a representative, I've already agreed to meet with them.
Mr Cousens: That answer somehow goes in the face of the statement made by the member for Durham West when he was elected on September 6th and said, "We have a population that has asked for a credible government that will really listen to the people." He got elected on that issue, but now when the people want to have a chance to talk to the government they elected on September 6th it would appear that they're not able to have that opportunity to have those get-togethers that were so common before you were elected.
The people are now saying to you, Mrs Grier, that they don't want anything to do with the way you're pushing these proposed landfill sites on York, Durham and Peel. They're saying no way to having the land that grows our food become a dump. They're saying no way to having the stinking smell of garbage permeating their homes. They're saying no way to having sensitive parks and green spaces becoming dumps. They're saying no way to having our drinking water contaminated.
Will you somehow look at the other option of looking at Kirkland Lake as a viable option? Will you say yes to the people of York, Durham and Peel and open the discussion on waste options?
Hon Mrs Grier: Mr Speaker, this member has called continuously for an application of the Environmental Assessment Act to the site selection process. I know the member is familiar with the act, and the act is a planning process that by a process of elimination allows one to arrive at the best site: a site that will not take up a river valley, a site that will not contaminate water, a site that will not harm the environment. You don't go through that process by saying, "Let's pick Kirkland Lake; it happens to be available" and make that the site. You have to look at all the alternative sites within the area of site search. If you're going to say that the entire province is a candidate site --
Mr Sorbara: Oh, Ruth, will you stop it? That's not the issue.
The Speaker: Order, member for York Centre.
Hon Mrs Grier: -- for the waste from the greater Toronto area, then you look at every possible landfill throughout the entire province. The member knows that's not an acceptable way of dealing with the greater Toronto area's garbage.
The Speaker: Final supplementary.
Mr Cousens: That's not acceptable to this minister, but it's acceptable for you to go and break agreements between Metro and York region on Keele Valley; it's acceptable for you to break agreements on Britannia; it's acceptable if it's your way but it's not acceptable if it's what the people of the province of Ontario want. That's the issue.
I'll tell you, it's as close to a sense of the 1837 rebellion, where some 800 farmers from York and the areas north of Toronto came down and marched on Toronto, and they brought their sticks and they went and made a voice. Some of them were hanged, some of them went to the United States, some of them went elsewhere. I'll tell you this much, there were more people at the front of Queen's Park than there were involved in the rebellion of 1837.
We are responsible people. We are people who want to be listened to and who want to have another option and you're not giving us that option. We ask you, as Minister of the Environment and one who has fought for democratic rights, to look again at the option of a rail haul outside of Metropolitan Toronto. Will you at least look at that?
Hon Mrs Grier: The people of York region, as have been identified, are very concerned about this issue.
Interjections.
Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Go back to your apartment and take a rest.
Mr Cousens: Talk about sleaze. You're good at it, Gilles.
The Speaker: Would the minister take her seat. The member for Markham, that is not parliamentary. I would ask the member to withdraw the unparliamentary remark which he just uttered.
Mr Cousens: If I offended the honourable member and said something that is not in the character of this beautiful House, I withdraw it.
Hon Mrs Grier: As the member for York North and the member for Markham well know, there are very many people in York region who have indeed established themselves as environmentalists and are very much concerned about the issues we're debating here. I think the member does them a disservice by putting the debate in the framework of rebellion and 1837.
The opportunity that is provided by the Environmental Assessment Act is to bring to the debate all the environmental issues and all the debate about the merits of alternative sites that the member wishes and I know those people wish to engage in. That's the forum where the argument has to occur and that's the forum that will be most productive to an environmental solution to this issue.
LABOUR LEGISLATION
Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): My question is to the Minister of Labour. For months we have been asking you to table an impact study into your labour legislation. To date you have refused. That leads us to believe one of two things: Either you haven't done a study, which I believe would then make you unfit to govern, or you've done one but you won't table it because you're afraid the impact study will confirm that the legislation will kill jobs.
Again to be clear, there are two options: Either you haven't done a study, or you've done one and you're afraid the legislation will kill the jobs. Minister, which one is it?
Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): In response to the member, I'd like to know how many impact studies we had from his government when it was in power.
Interjections.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.
Mr Carr: And we wonder why people are cynical about politicians and the political process when we hear an answer like that from the Minister of Labour in 1992. This legislation will only create more jobs in the United States. Every study that has been done has said it will kill jobs and kill investment. Mr Minister, either produce one shred of evidence which shows there will be no job losses or admit that the legislation will kill jobs. Which is it, Minister?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order. Minister.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I'd like to ask the member to repeat the question. I couldn't hear it with all the noise from across the way.
The Speaker: Would the member repeat the question.
1420
Mr Carr: What I said in the question was that the legislation will only create more jobs in the United States. Every study that has been done said there will be job losses and investment will be killed as a direct result of your legislation. My question is this: Either produce one shred of evidence that proves there will not be any job losses or admit the legislation will kill jobs. What is it, Mr Minister?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: There have been a lot of polls. I wouldn't say there have been proper surveys. If I thought the legislation was going to kill jobs, I wouldn't be bringing it into the House.
Mr Carr: This government has $160,000 for your friend Wally Majesky to do a study on prep schools for union bosses and you've got $200,000 to study bike paths; yet the biggest piece of legislation the province will see from this destructive government and you refuse to do a study. It doesn't make any sense, Mr Minister. Why do you refuse to do a job impact study? Don't let the people believe us or you; do an impact study so the people will know very clearly what the job losses will be. My question is the same as the beginning: Are you afraid of what the results will be, Mr Minister?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I want to say I haven't had a question in the House yet that I'm afraid of. I may or may not be right on all the answers, but I certainly don't fear any of the questions. I would also like to say I think it's unfortunate that we see the day-after-day attack from certain members of this House on what they call union bosses, who do happen to have to get themselves elected, which is often not the case with some of the coalitions.
The Speaker: New question, the member for Eglinton.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order.
Mr Carr: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: That answer is totally unacceptable to the people of the province. I would like to go on the record as saying that I will be here at 6 o'clock, if it's acceptable to ask the question of the Minister of Labour again. It is totally unacceptable to the people of the province for a Minister of Labour on a piece of legislation --
The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. Briefly, as I have done on other occasions, I would ask members to please raise that particular point of order outside of the time allotted for oral questions. Of course the member must file the necessary paper at the table.
ROOMING HOUSES
Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): My question is for the Minister of Housing. All members of this Legislature will remember the devastating tragedy of the fire that gutted the Rupert Hotel in December 1989, killed 10 people and left many others homeless.
In January 1991, as part of its anti-recession fund, the NDP government announced it would spend $3 million to upgrade privately owned rooming houses in Toronto so that they met fire, health and safety codes. Mr Speaker, I regret that I must bring before you today just the latest example of how the NDP government can take a perfectly fine idea and bungle it badly.
Eighteen months later, this renovation money, supposedly to come from last year's anti-recession funds, has not been spent, but even worse, the Minister of Housing has plunged the program into chaos. First there was no advertising so that rooming houses could apply. Instead the government sent representatives to selected private rooming houses and gave the owners a hard sell to enter the program.
Then the government misled the people with promises: promises that the program would be fast-tracked, promises that the renovations would be done quickly and in fact completed by March 31, promises that tenants would be able to remain in place while renovations took place. Instead the lives of these people have been disrupted and the renovations have still not occurred.
How can the minister justify making a shambles of a perfectly good idea?
Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I categorically reject that description of what has happened in our efforts to work with the Rupert Hotel Coalition, a community-based group which has worked in conjunction with the city of Toronto to try to develop a program which everyone knew was going to be hard to deliver. It has taken that coalition longer than it expected to be able to put a program in place. That coalition has in fact not been able to spend the money which was originally allocated through the anti-recession fund.
However, we have made a commitment at the Ministry of Housing that the moneys will be forthcoming through our regular programs and that the program can proceed as originally intended. If she has specific problems about a specific tenant or a specific rooming house, we would be glad to try to track down what the difficulty might have been, but the coalition has been working very hard on the project and to describe it as a shambles is I think most unfair to its work.
Ms Poole: It is totally unbecoming of the Minister of Housing to imply that I am casting aspersions on the Rupert Hotel Coalition. I am not. They are a fine group and doing fine work. It is your government that has bungled.
Let me give you an example, Madam Minister. Let me give you the example of Mrs X. Mrs X was approached by the government representatives in November of last year and given a very hard sell to apply and to enter the program. After she agreed to participate and when the plans were well along, she was told she would have to eject two tenants from the basement because one of the criteria was that there could not be tenants living in basements. She was told this would be temporary because the program was fast-tracked and because the renovation money was forthcoming and the program would be completed by March 31.
We are now into July and Mrs X's renovations haven't even started. To add insult to injury, she has been personally paying for those two basement tenants to live elsewhere while they are waiting for the renovations to be completed. Because she's on line for the ministry's renovation program, she is being constantly harassed by building inspectors for building, safety and health codes, but she can't satisfy the requirements until the ministry does the renovations.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member place her supplementary, please.
Ms Poole: Mr Speaker, this is my question. This woman is just representative of many who are in this catch-22 situation through no fault of their own. Minister, the program has fallen apart. What are you going to do about it?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I categorically reject the prejudgement of this member that the program has fallen apart. In fact the program development is being done by the Rupert Hotel Coalition in cooperation with the city of Toronto. If she would provide the so-called names of so-called ministry officials who have so-called harassed a so-called Mrs X, perhaps we could try to sort out her so-called information.
1430
WOMEN IN ADVERTISING
Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Mr Minister, I have a copy of a London Free Press article dated July 4. According to this article, your ministry has published an ad for a Dolly Parton look-alike contest. It's in Fenelon Falls and I'm sure you know about it. Given the fact that this government has appropriately condemned sexism in advertising, can you explain why this ad appears in a government publication that has been funded by the Ontario taxpayers?
Hon Peter North (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): I can tell you that we were made quite aware of this problem in the ministry publication. I would like to apologize, first of all, to the women of Ontario, if they are offended by this and, second, say we will do our best to make sure it doesn't happen in one of our publications again.
Mrs Cunningham: I think perhaps a lot of us have learned things in this House, and that is that no one political party has a monopoly on the good things for Ontario explicitly for itself. I can say right now that many of us are personally disappointed that this did in fact appear, especially given that this government and the Premier expelled or suspended or got rid of the member for Welland-Thorold for appearing as a Sunshine Boy in one of the local newspapers, and now we see in this advertisement -- and I know I'm being particularly tough on the minister because I feel that way today -- this is what this ad says, it promises "Ladies' full bathing suit, bikini and bum contest."
Minister, will you publicly, on top of what you've already done, condemn this kind of contest in the province of Ontario and, second, assure this House -- or reassure this House in case I didn't hear you correctly -- that this kind of advertising will never take place in a government advertisement again?
Hon Mr North: If I'm correct in saying so, there are about 1,700 listings of events in this particular publication, and there are about 20 publications in the ministry, so you can see that there is every opportunity for a mistake to be made. What has happened in this particular publication is a mistake, and again I would like to be the first to admit that it is a mistake and we will do our best to ensure that it doesn't happen again.
GAMBLING
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. On April 30 the Treasurer announced in his budget that casino gambling was going to be coming to Ontario. This is an announcement that was met with a great deal of excitement and anticipation in the city of Windsor. I have in my hand some of the letters I've been receiving from the people in Windsor and area in support of this initiative, and I say "some of the letters" because I've got about 1,500 to 2,000 letters supporting this initiative. I also have a copy of a resolution from the city of Windsor council unanimously supporting this idea. I also have a very detailed business plan prepared by the city's casino convention centre committee that proposes a single-site, government-operated facility. I also have in my hand a letter from the mayor and the committee of the city of Windsor expressing some concern about the minister's remarks that it may take up to a year to have casinos up and running here in the province. My question to the minister is, what can she explain to us as the reason for this delay?
Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I guess it's debatable whether or not it's seen as a delay. No decisions whatsoever have been made on the timing of casinos. I said at that time that it could take up to a year, speculating, just in terms of the work that needs to be done to prepare, as we've never before in Ontario gotten into the casino business.
We'll be working with and consulting with interested communities and other stakeholders, organizations such as the horse racing industry and the charitable organizations, other municipalities which have interests other than Windsor -- there are some others out there -- and making sure we address the kinds of issues that have been fact brought up by people in this House and in communities: issues around ownership, who's going to run it; issues around regulatory and enforcement processes. Those kinds of things, some of which are very complex, we need to look at carefully. I think the consultation process we have to put in place --
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude her response, please.
Hon Ms Churley: -- as we promised people, is quite important.
Mr Lessard: I can understand that a number of those issues are important and that there is a consultation process that might need to take place, but I'd like to know what specific steps the minister may be taking to expedite this matter.
Hon Ms Churley: We have recently set up a special project team. It should be up and running, I hope, by the middle to end of July. That project team will specifically be addressing the kinds of issues I briefly mentioned today. I should be making an announcement some time in the near future, some time later on in July, about that project team and some further details about where we're heading from here.
The Speaker: New question, the member for Lawrence.
Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): My question, too, is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Once again, this is a topic that's uppermost in people's minds. Your member from the Windsor area is obviously very interested in seeing casino gambling move forward. That city has stated its real desire to see casino gambling in the city of Windsor.
I want to ask the minister -- as she's announcing today that she's going to make an announcement about what specific plans she is going to put in place for consultation -- who she's talking to today and what studies she has undertaken with respect to the impact of casino gambling in the various communities that have been proposed.
I asked her that question several months ago when this plan was introduced and I still have, as of this date, not received an answer with respect to specific studies she has undertaken for the very real question of impact on the communities that will be affected by this. Does she have an answer for me today?
Hon Ms Churley: As I said in response to the previous question, we have the project team, which will be up and running very soon, and that team will be looking at and doing the consulting on a number of the issues you have raised. As I said, I will be making an announcement on that soon.
There have been a number of consultations, formal and informal, that have taken place over the past few months with various components of the horse racing industry and some charitable organizations and other interested people. There are a lot of interested people here. They will be consulted further, but the project team will take over that responsibility once it's up and running.
Mr Cordiano: Why all the secrecy around who's heading this up? Why not just be clear about where it's going and who's going to head this up and who are the people who are being consulted? We still haven't got those answers. The people of Ontario are very interested in this. They want to know in what direction you're headed, what plans you're putting in place. With the vagueness of this answer, one would almost come to the conclusion that this government has no intention of moving forward with this and that in fact it might have had a change of heart. It's not inconceivable that this government might change its mind on another substantive issue. Could that be possible, that this minister and this government is leading down a path it has no intention of pursuing? Is that really what's going to happen here? Or give us some details, come up with some names.
Hon Ms Churley: Cabinet, as I've said, has already approved the project team. There's no secret about the project team. It will be reporting to my ministry. There will be a number of other ministries represented on this project team. As I said in earlier announcements, we are going about this in a very controlled and careful way. That is the process we have undertaken. We will be very shortly making another announcement as to the consultation process that we will be setting up soon.
1440
LONG-TERM CARE
Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, in your speech yesterday to the Senior Citizens' Consumer Alliance for Long-Term Care Reform, you reconfirmed the NDP preference for the not-for-profit sector in the future delivery of long-term care services in this province. You also admitted that you do not have the money to reform the long-term care system in a major way within the next three years.
I want to avoid a repeat of what is happening in the child care sector, where your government is bound and determined to get rid of private operators regardless of the cost to taxpayers. In fact, in my area of the province, when we hear the NDP use the term "not for profit," we grab on to our wallets and duck for cover.
Private home care agencies employ over 18,000 people, provide over nine million hours of care annually and cover 41% of homemaking services in Ontario. Minister, if you do not have the money to reform the long-term care system, why are you even contemplating eliminating the private sector from the delivery of home care services?
Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): Yesterday, and I'd be pleased to do it again today -- I'd like to confirm our government's preference for not-for-profit delivery of services in the area of human services, particularly in the area of health care and particularly as we see a shift from hospital and insured services that have always been covered under the principle of universality under the Canada Health Act to a different kind of delivery of services that aren't currently covered under the Canada Health Act. We would like to see those principles carried out into that sector.
Perhaps I could correct one thing the member said, or clarify, because he is technically correct in saying that I indicated we can't spend the money in three years. The question that was put to me was whether we could spend the five-year, multi-year budget, and speed it up and get to the $647 million by a three-year time frame. I said I didn't think that was possible given the fiscal outlook.
I did, however, have a very direct exchange in a question and answer period with an individual who put a question much like the member of the third party's with respect to this issue in which he wanted to know what it meant in practical terms. In practical terms right now, let me say that I'm not about to take decisions that are going to destabilize the delivery of services within this area. I do, however, think it's very important that we look, as we're planning for expansion in the future, to see how we support our preference for the not-for-profit delivery of service.
Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Minister, you say you're not prepared to make decisions that will destabilize the situation. If you read the Consumers' Report on Long-Term Care Reform, presented by the senior citizens' consumer alliance, which represents one million senior citizens in this province, this report clearly says that your government's decisions are leading to a destabilized situation for seniors and health care services in Ontario.
The decisions by you, your Treasurer and the Minister of Community and Social Services have resulted in cuts to chronic care beds in chronic care hospitals; cuts to chronic care beds in acute care hospitals; cuts to homes for the aged through the Minister of Community and Social Services; cuts to nursing home beds.
Madam Minister, all these seniors have to live somewhere, the frail and elderly have to go somewhere, and when you tell a group that you're not going to have the funds necessary to have a smooth, sensitive transition for these seniors, and when you say you're going to continue to show your preference for the non-profit sector, thereby eliminating a whole host of support services that are provided economically in the community and in the home, the question that seniors asked you yesterday that you don't wish to raise today is this: Why is it that with all the cuts that seniors have experienced in health care over the last couple of years in the name of long-term care reform, they now have to listen to you say, "Sorry, seniors, we won't have the funds to make sure you're not out on the street from these health care services" that they've been promised --
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the member complete his supplementary.
Mr Jackson: -- by your government and the previous government to the millions of seniors and citizens who need extended health care services in this province?
Hon Ms Lankin: I know the member is genuine in his concern for the plight of senior citizens, but let me tell you that he does a disservice to the senior citizens' consumer coalition itself and its report and to the kind of dialogue that is going on between government and consumers of these services with some of the absolutely inaccurate statements that he made in that question.
Let me say and clarify yet again that I did not say to anyone that we did not have the money --
Mr Jackson: That's crap. You're not reading the report. Why would you lie about that?
Hon Ms Lankin: Mr Speaker, I'm not sure exactly what I heard across the floor.
Mr Jackson: You said the report was a lie. I quoted from the report.
Hon Ms Lankin: I think he simply said --
The Speaker: Order. This House stands recessed until the call of the Chair. I ask all members if they would quietly and quickly leave the chamber.
The House recessed at 1445.
1504
The Speaker: Had the Minister of Health completed her response?
Hon Ms Lankin: I wanted to say to the member, before we took the short recess, that a couple of his statements and assertions were incorrect. I ask him to look at those carefully because I think the conclusions they lead him to are erroneous conclusions, but I can understand how he gets to point B from point A when he starts off at the wrong point A.
Let me be clear around the statement I made around the budget for long-term care. I did not say that there was not enough money to implement our plans for long-term care, that the $647 million wasn't there. That's a multi-year budget that's planned to be spent and to get up to those additional new moneys in five years. What I said in answer to a question is that I didn't think we could speed it up and get it there in three years.
Also, with respect to the chronic care hospitals, we haven't made cuts to chronic care hospitals and we're currently working with the Council of Chronic Care Hospitals of Ontario around problems a couple of hospitals face with deficits that have led them to propose closures of beds, but that's an issue that is ongoing.
Let me say in general with respect to the report from the senior citizens' consumer alliance that I think it is just a dynamic, comprehensive piece of work, and the thing that excites me about it is that there are ideas in there that neither the third party nor the official opposition nor the government ever came up with when we looked at the issues of developing a program for delivery of long-term care. The reason is that we have moved very directly to involve consumers in leading the consultation on the report.
The Speaker: Could the minister complete her response, please.
Hon Ms Lankin: They have come forward with a tremendous, far-reaching set of recommendations and we're giving them serious consideration. I said from the beginning that the really important thing was getting the answer right and that our report went out there to provoke debate. It has done that and we're really anxious to work with people on solutions.
INVESTMENT FUND
Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): My question is to the Treasurer and it deals with the Ontario investment fund. Our government released a discussion paper on April 14, 1992.
Subsequent to the release of this discussion paper, Mr Treasurer, I've received some calls from members of OMERS, which is the Ontario municipal employees retirement system -- not so much the board but the members themselves. Apparently they've received what I perceive to be some misinformation about the intent of the OIF, particularly as it pertains to the voluntary aspect of contributing to this fund. Could the Treasurer perhaps clarify for myself and for my constituents who are members of OMERS who have these concerns?
Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): "OMARS" is where Bob Rae has his rice pudding.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order.
Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): This is a tough act to follow, Mr Speaker.
The member for Brantford is quite right. There's been some concern about the Ontario investment fund from some folks out there, particularly from the OMERS people, and I regret that very much.
We announced the Ontario investment fund and I guess in our very first throne speech indicated that because there were gaps in investment, and in particular gaps in expertise out there for more creative investments in high value added, knowledge-based kinds of industries, there was a need for this kind of fund, and indeed other jurisdictions have these kinds of funds as well.
There are some members of OMERS who have the mistaken impression that there's something compulsory about this program. It is totally voluntary. If the unions, public sector unions and others -- it's not just coming from public sector funds; others as well -- want to make a contribution to the health and the growth of this economy in Ontario, we encourage them to do so, but there's absolutely nothing about it that is compulsory.
Mr Ward: I guess the opposition isn't used to my Brantford accent.
We are in a period of, I believe, consultation as far as the fund is concerned. When will the fund become a reality? Is there some type of timetable?
Hon Mr Laughren: At the present time, an advisory committee has been struck from various sectors out there, including the financial community, and they are working now, through this advisory committee, to develop an implementation program for the fund in order to determine what model it will be, exactly what will be the shape of that investment fund.
We hope their work will be completed in the next few months and that we can get on with the establishment of the fund, because it really is the case that while the OMERS board has been somewhat difficult in this regard, it's a wise investment not only for the surplus funds, but also for Ontario. It will bring us into the 20th century when it comes to the establishment of funds and putting money, in a very strategic way, into the kinds of industries where right now there is a lack of funds. That is generally acknowledged to be the case, so we hope to have it up and running as soon as the advisory committee has completed its work.
1510
AMBULANCE SERVICES
Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, I raise a question today that is of real concern to the people of Quinte and other parts of the province. As you will see, the matter concerns ambulance services. Effective June 11, 1992, the Ministry of Health ambulance services branch has ordered that as a cost-saving measure, call-back crews not be called in on duty when the first ambulance leaves on an emergency call.
In our area these new conditions mean that an ambulance responding to a life-threatening emergency like a car accident or heart attack could take from 14 to 18 minutes, rather than the regular four to eight minutes, to respond. I believe this significant increase in response time could have grave consequences. Minister, might I have your comments and possible reconsideration on this matter.
Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I'd be pleased to take some time to talk with the member in greater detail about the concerns particular to his region and the decisions on how it's affecting service in that direct region.
We certainly are facing a number of difficult decisions with respect to the amount of money we have available in the ministry's budget this year and the amount we have transferred of the 1% to our private operator transfer payment agencies out there. The management decisions that have been made in all cases have looked at what the record has been in terms of utilization of backup crews that have been called in to be on call, how frequent it is and what impact they think this kind of change in the organization of service and on-call services will have. I would like to have an opportunity to review the details of what you bring forward and to speak to you specifically on that.
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I want to echo the member for Quinte's serious concern with ambulance service in this province. In my riding of Algoma-Manitoulin, there's been a decrease in the availability of ambulance services. The ambulance services located on Manitoulin and Espanola have had to cut their service on weekends considerably because of your government's policy.
We've lost a total of 10 shifts in the area. This means a drop in the backup ability of these services and a substantial decrease in the transferability of the trauma and testing facilities at the regional referral centre in Sudbury. In Elliot Lake, physicians have expressed their concern about the ambulance service arrangements. In addition, the backup service to my constituents and the primary service to the people of Sudbury, the Sudbury ambulance service, is also being cut, affecting not only Sudburians but also my constituents in other outlying areas.
I raised this issue with the minister by way of letter in early June. The minister would know that the unions have also expressed a concern and are awaiting a positive response. Minister, I just ask that you assure my constituents, the people of Sudbury region and all northerners that their lives and wellbeing are not being put in danger by these service cuts.
Hon Ms Lankin: I can certainly assure the member that we will work, wherever we can, to try and make sure that we continue the quality of services. I can obviously say that I will be able to increase the amount of money we're transferring to the private operators out there. We have transferred 1% We have to manage within that 1% for those agencies out there that we've transferred it to.
You will know that an ambulance services consumer report had been commissioned to look at the delivery of emergency services in Ontario that is being consulted on right now. We will be receiving it back very shortly. I believe there are a number of recommendations in terms of better organization of services, ending the duplication of administration and trying to put those dollars into direct delivery of service. I will try and move very quickly on positive recommendations that have community consent and support through the consultation period, because I understand the kinds of concerns you raise on behalf of your constituents.
AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY
Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): To the Minister of Labour, Minister, on a number of occasions you have refused to tell Ontario farm families if the recommendations of the Task Force on Agricultural Labour Relations will indeed occur. When the report was released, the government announcements said nothing about adopting the number one recommendation of the labour task force on agriculture. This recommendation was made by both farmers and union representatives. Minister, please confirm that this recommendation will be adopted by the government for separate legislation for agriculture, if indeed you are listening.
Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I have been listening, and as I indicated before, I've had a number of talks with the farm community. We are still looking at what the final draft will be in terms of the recommendations the committee seems to have agreed upon.
Mr Villeneuve: I have difficulty with that, because the report's been available for quite some time. Agriculture is very concerned about being included in the Ontario Labour Relations Act. Recognizing that agricultural products by and large are perishable, we cannot compare them with any other matter such as steel, the car industry or whatever.
If lockouts and strikes are not going to occur, don't you think this does not fit in with the OLRA as you've set it up and that you should be turning it over to your colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food so that it could be operated where people know what's happening within the agricultural industry?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: The member seems to forget that the report that was issued and the recommendations that were made were unanimous, both the union and the farm community. When you get a report that does the work they've done, you take a careful look at how it can be implemented, and that's exactly what we're doing.
NATIONAL HOUSING PROGRAM
Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): My question is to the Minister of Housing. Recently the minister met with her counterparts from across the country at a federal-provincial conference and I was wondering if the minister could report to the House on the outcome of those discussions.
I want to tell you that the residents of my community, as well as the communities of Guelph, Waterloo and Cambridge, recently got together in order to look at the whole question of the federal government's mean-spirited decision to get out of the federal housing program. In that the federal minister of housing was at the meeting with the Minister of Housing from Ontario and her provincial counterparts, I'm wondering if they got anywhere with the federal minister of housing.
Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): We did have a meeting of federal, provincial and territorial ministers of housing on Monday last. It was, in my view, a very successful meeting in that I felt, as ministers from the territories and provinces, we had made clear to the federal minister the impact of the federal budget cuts and our very well based concerns about whether a national housing program would be continued in the future.
We found that in the Yukon this year, it will be impossible for that territory to continue to deliver housing through the national housing program because of the small size of its allocation. We found in the Northwest Territories, unless there's an answer by September, they won't know whether they can build units next year. Further, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland have indicated they will not be able to carry on with the national housing program next year if they don't get further allocations, all of which have been dampened and cut back by the federal budget.
I think the federal minister understood. On behalf of all ministers, I have written to the Prime Minister and to Mr Mazankowski, the federal Minister of Finance, to lay out our concerns and to indicate to them that we have asked the federal housing minister, Mr MacKay, to follow up on our concerns and make it clear to his cabinet colleagues that if we're to have a national housing program in Canada in the future, the federal government is going to have to make sure the resources are available.
MOTIONS
CONSIDERATION OF BILLS
Mr Cooke moves that standing order 85, respecting notice of committee hearings, be suspended for consideration of Bills Pr37, Pr38, Pr48, Pr53, Pr56 and Pr57 by the standing committee on regulations and private bills on Wednesday, July 8, 1992.
Motion agreed to.
1520
PETITIONS
INVESTMENT FUND
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition signed by in excess of 265 people. It's addressed to the Parliament of Ontario and it says:
"Whereas the government of Ontario plans to set up an investment fund for the following pensions: OMERS, teachers' superannuation fund, Ontario Hydro, the public service superannuation fund, Ontario Hospital Association and Ontario colleges,
"The following members of OMERS are opposed to the proposed appropriation of pension funds by the government of Ontario."
I have also signed this petition.
LANDFILL SITES
Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have 10,000 petitions but have been told to hand them in only 2,000 at a time so that we have a chance for this House to realize that there are many people concerned.
"We, the undersigned, hereby call on the government of Ontario to discontinue the consideration of locating a waste disposal site in Markham M6, the 11th concession south of Locust Hill, and in all other areas that are located in the immediate vicinity of environmentally sensitive areas of York region."
I have 2,000 petitions. I just hope the government realizes that people are very concerned and upset and want it to do something about it.
TAXATION
Mr Mark Morrow (Wentworth East): I have a petition signed by 6,800 people to Premier Bob Rae and Treasurer Floyd Laughren.
"We, the Canadian taxpayers, are signing our names to this petition to protest the $3.10 unjust governmental levy put on refundable beer cans. This is jeopardizing many jobs unnecessarily in the Canadian food and packaging industry. These jobs can and will become unemployment and welfare statistics. We will not stand by in an already unreliable economy and risk valuable jobs on an unnecessary tax.
"We, the people, urge the government to rectify this mistake and keep the jobs where they belong in Ontario."
LANDFILL SITES
Mr Charles Beer (York North): Rising out of today's demonstration, I have a petition signed by some 6,500 people from the township of East Gwillimbury. I should also note that the hat I have was presented at the same time. The petition reads as follows:
"To the Legislative Assembly:
"Whereas the town of East Gwillimbury has traditionally been a mixture of agriculture and residential land, both areas would be drastically affected by a megadump. The town possesses a significant amount of land which has historically been and remains devoted primarily to agriculture; and
"Whereas the historical significance of our area is typified by Sharon Temple, its many patrons and the pastoral quality has considerable significance to this area; and
"Whereas the effects of a megadump on the water supply of this area would be catastrophic. The township of East Gwillimbury supplies water to the Newmarket and Aurora area,
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:
"We oppose the provincial government's proposal to take prime agricultural land with historical significance in East Gwillimbury to turn into Metro and York's megadump;
"We further petition the Legislative Assembly to renew their efforts to seek and entertain alternatives to landfill."
I have signed this petition in support.
GAMBLING
Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Mr Speaker, I'm pleased to table a petition, signed by members of the official board of the Walton Memorial United Church in my riding of Oakville South, which reads as follows:
"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas there is much evidence to substantiate that everywhere casino gambling has been established it has generated undesirable side effects in the form of prostitution, theft, organized crime, illegal drugs and political corruption; and
"Whereas no amount of regulation or police enforcement seems to be able to control the growth of these deviant factors where such gambling exists; and
"Whereas history teaches us that gambling and games of chance erode moral character as they promote the notion that one should look to get a quick windfall or something for nothing, thus promoting a strong belief in fate and luck rather than in hard work and thrift; and
"Whereas most forms of gambling end up being a tax on those least able to pay; and
"Whereas gambling, particularly casino gambling, produces in many people a terrible addiction, every bit as potent as addiction to alcohol, and the principal victims of this addiction are often the families who become charges on the welfare system of the state; and
"Whereas any revenue benefit, necessarily a small part of the total Ontario budget after meeting the additional expenses of regulation, policing and welfare, would unlikely be sufficient to offset the social costs;
"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to declare that it will not legalize casino gambling."
MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES
Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by 54 residents of Middlesex county. This petition was sponsored and circulated by the municipal councils of the county of Middlesex and has been signed by citizens from Glencoe, Strathroy, Kerwood and Granton. They petition the Legislature to set aside the Brant report and request that the annexation of lands in Middlesex by the city of London be reduced, that agricultural land be preserved and that the rural way of life that we treasure so in Middlesex be maintained. I have signed my name to this petition.
ONTARIO STUDENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario:
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:
"The provincial government of Ontario proposes even further cuts to the Ontario student assistance program. As a group, we must stand up and voice our concern for this senseless act of neglect. We are fed up with the constant cutting of OSAP. Stop destroying our futures."
This petition is signed by 253 young people whose further education is in jeopardy because of the cuts to OSAP and the increase in university and college fees. I have signed this petition.
GAMBLING
Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition signed by approximately 60 individuals, and it reads as follows:
"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas the NDP government is considering legalizing casinos and video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario; and
"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the abovementioned implementations,
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"That the government stop looking to casinos and video lottery terminals as a 'quick-fix' solution to its fiscal problems and concentrate instead on eliminating wasteful government spending."
I have affixed my signature to it as well.
EDUCATION FUNDING
Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario as well, and it reads:
"We, the ratepayers, parents, staff and students of the Metropolitan Separate School Board, are concerned about the way in which Catholic education is funded by the Ontario government in Metropolitan Toronto."
This was orchestrated by an event, a seminar at Don Bosco school. There were actually three communities that participated. I'm going to attach my signature to this as well, because I do think it's important.
COURT RULING
Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:
"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, in support of the mother of Debra Pauline Williams Ellul, draw to the attention of the House the following:
"That the right to appeal the decision made in Debra Williams Ellul murder acquitting Guy Ellul of all charges be granted based on the fact that the decision not to allow the appeal does not accurately reflect the public's abhorrence and unacceptability of the outcome of this trial."
The petition is signed by residents of Hamilton, Oakville, Burlington, Stoney Creek, Annan and Orono, and I've attached my signature.
LABOUR LEGISLATION
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My petition is from Paris, Streetsville, Windsor and Brampton. I hope I pronounce this right. I don't have a Brampton accent.
"Whereas independent and non-partisan economic studies have concluded that the proposed changes to the Ontario labour legislation will increase job losses; and
"Whereas they will cause a decline in investment in Ontario; and
"Whereas they will seriously undermine the recovery and the maintenance of a sound economic environment in the province,
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"That the government of Ontario declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to the labour legislation in the best interests of the people of Ontario."
These were collected without any assistance from Jack Layton in the Ministry of Health, and I'll affix my signature there as follows.
FRUIT GROWERS
Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I have two petitions, one from the Jordan Station United Church and the other from the Lundy's Lane United Church, both of which say the following:
"Whereas the Ontario tender-fruit growers are facing financial crisis;
"Therefore, we, the members of the Niagara presbytery of the United Church of Canada, petition the Ontario government to act immediately to find a solution to the economic viability of tender-fruit farms.
"Whereas the Ontario tender-fruit growers are facing financial crisis; and
"Whereas the Ontario government is undertaking an agricultural land protection program,
"Therefore, we, the members of the said churches, oppose restrictions on the tender-fruit land until economic viability of the tender-fruit growers is restored."
1530
LABOUR LEGISLATION
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition presented to me by the Cornwall and District Labour Council, which reads:
"We, the undersigned, voters of the Cornwall area, support the proposed amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act."
STUDENT SAFETY
Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition signed by about 300 people. It reads as follows:
"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas Matthew Morten died tragically at his residence at York University as a result of a severed brachial artery caused by a shard of glass;
"Whereas the glass which caused Matthew's death broke free from the door of his residence and was not safety glass;
"Whereas the regional coroner from Metropolitan Toronto has refused the family's request for an inquest and has indicated that it was economically unsound to make universities replace non-safety glass, although a recommendation has been sent to universities by the coroner asking only that they consider replacing such glass;
"Whereas there are other issues which should also be addressed, including the late response of the ambulance because it became lost on campus and the inability of the attendants to carry Matthew out on a stretcher due to the narrowness of the stairs;
"Whereas ignoring the abovementioned circumstances may lead to another death or serious injury,
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"That an inquest into the death of Matthew Morten be ordered immediately to ensure that the safety of other Ontario students is safeguarded."
I have affixed my signature thereto.
RETAIL STORE HOURS
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I have a petition signed by some 100 people of Ottawa-Carleton. It reads as follows:
"I, as a resident of Ottawa, wish to make known my views on the approach of the government to Sunday shopping. I am against the government's position of introducing Sunday shopping, as it interferes with the development of family life in Ontario and deprives employees of a common day of rest."
MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES
Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario signed by 120 residents of Middlesex county.
"That the Legislature reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."
I have affixed my signature.
STANDING ORDERS REFORM
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.
"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and
"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and
"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and
"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and
"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and
"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them,
"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rules changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."
This is signed by residents of the province of Ontario. I have affixed my signature to this in agreement with it.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and
"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and
"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and
"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and
"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and
"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly who are accountable to the people who elect them,
"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rules changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules and procedures in effect previous to June 22, 1992."
This has been signed by constituents in my riding in Etobicoke and I will affix my name to that as well.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time allotted for the presentation of petitions has expired.
NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Pursuant to standing order 33, the member for Oakville South has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Labour concerning impact studies on job losses. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
LABOUR RELATIONS AND EMPLOYMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL ET À L'EMPLOI
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 40, An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Collective Bargaining and Employment / Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui a trait à la négociation collective et à l'emploi.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Waterloo North has the floor.
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Yesterday we began our debate of Bill 40, and we had an opportunity to hear from the Minister of Labour as well as from the Labour critic for the official opposition. Last night I had the opportunity to reflect on the comments that had been made by the minister yesterday and to reflect on the objectives he spoke about, some of the objectives he was hoping could be accomplished by passing these reforms; objectives, by the way, that I believe everyone in the province would agree with.
The minister talked about the need for consultation. He talked about the need for labour peace. We all agree that those are needs that need to be recognized and achieved. Indeed, I have received hundreds of letters, faxes, phone calls, and in personal conversation, and these are needs people wish to see achieved.
Then the minister went on to say that he had participated in an unprecedented public and private consultation process, that he had talked to many people, that the ministry had listened to many people. Yes, there may have been unprecedented consultation both public and private, but it was not real consultation. Why not? Every participant was being forced to respond to the original union-driven agenda, and the bill we have today, Bill 40, contains only union proposals. There is not one proposal from management. Why go through the charade of consultation if you are not going to incorporate the views of all the participants?
The minister spoke about the need for more cooperation and participation between labour and business. I think we need to clarify something at this point. When we talk about labour, we need to make sure that we are talking about all men and women in this province, not only those who are unionized, because only about 35% of the workforce is unionized. Yes, we do need cooperation and we do need participation between labour and business if we're going to herald in a new era of prosperity, and we do need to build partnerships. We agree with the minister's objectives.
However, why did the process the minister embarked on not allow for that cooperation and for that building of partnerships? That is going to be much more difficult today because this legislation destroys the delicate balance of power and tilts it in favour of unions.
The minister spoke yesterday about the need to preserve basic human rights and freedoms. Again, we all agree with that. There is nothing more precious than our basic human rights and our freedoms. However, I want to tell you that there are many people in this province who fear that this legislation will reduce individual human rights and freedoms in favour of trade union rights.
1540
The minister spoke about the need to reduce industrial conflict and he told us that the replacement worker measure he was introducing, which was similar to Quebec's, had contributed to industrial peace in Quebec. We know that this is simply not true. As I pointed out yesterday, Quebec has lost nearly one million more days through strikes than Ontario despite the fact that it has a substantially lower population base and a smaller workforce. Since 1978, Quebec has suffered 20% more strikes than Ontario. Surely we do not want to emulate the Quebec record, as it certainly does not contribute to industrial peace.
The minister spoke about the tremendous changes that were made to the consultation document. Again we all agree that those changes were needed, but in reality, if we take a look at Bill 40 we know the agenda was only tinkered with. There was no substantive change made; there was no new amendment added from the other participants.
The minister spoke about the need to usher in the new era of peace and non-confrontation. Again we all agree. However, if those are indeed the objectives of this government and this minister, why did the government not bring labour and management together from the outset to review Ontario's labour relations system and make recommendations for constructive changes that would have addressed all the issues instead of concentrating only on the Ontario Labour Relations Act, because the OLRA deals only with unionization. It deals only with the 35% of workers who are unionized; it completely ignores the rest. Why were the concerns of the rest of workers, the non-unionized workers, not addressed?
People have spoken to me, and I know they've spoken to you, and they're asking for workplace changes. But they're not asking for unionization; they're asking for the enforcement of the Employment Standards Act. You've talked about the women who are in the workforce and you've talked about the minorities. Well, I've met with some of those groups, I've met with some of those very poorly paid individuals who work hard in the city of Toronto, and what they wanted was the enforcement of the Employment Standards Act. It wasn't unionization. Why are the concerns of these individuals not being addressed? Why are you focusing only on the unionized worker?
Even Steven Langdon, the NDP's industry critic at the federal government level in the Financial Post of July 6, 1992 -- this is what it says: "Even Langdon admits that his provincial counterparts mishandled labour reform by not including the concerns of Ontario business." This is what he says: "One of the things you want to do is make sure you don't come in and say 'We've got all the answers.'"
That's what this government tried to do. It came in and pretended it had all the answers. We're still dealing with the original 30-point wish list that was introduced by the minister. There is not one other agenda item that has been contributed by anyone else other than the union movement.
If this government had brought labour and management together from the outset rather than pitting one side against the other, and had built a cooperative model of labour relations through consensus building, there would not be the economic uncertainty in the province today that is contributing to lost investment and jobs, and there wouldn't be the feeling of frustration among people that the government isn't listening to anyone but union leaders.
If the government had done this, then people could have believed. If you had really listened and if you had brought people together in a true consultation process, then people in this province would have believed you were sincere about the objectives you spoke about yesterday.
Regrettably, there has been little evidence of cooperation, consultation or consensus-building on this issue. At a time when it is more important than ever that workers and management set aside their differences and work together to compete in the global economy, this government, by its action in the area of labour law reform, has created a crisis on the labour front where none existed. It's going to take years to mend the fences, and it was totally unnecessary.
Do you wonder why people are upset? Do you wonder why the three coalition groups, Project Economic Growth, the All Business Coalition and the More Jobs Coalition, were formed? Do you wonder why business leaves the province and does not expand and why no new investment comes in? It's because of the process this government used.
The minister rushed through the report of the Burkett committee in the spring of 1991 and wholeheartedly approved of the radical proposals submitted by the union representatives, saying -- and I quote -- they would "level the playing field." He totally ignored the recommendations of the management representatives. Nowhere in the government process did the government allow for consensus-building on this issue, even though the three coalition groups have been asking for tripartite discussions between government, labour and management since November 1991.
This government wonders why people are upset? Bill 40 contains the most radical pro-union set of labour reforms ever proposed in a single package in any jurisdiction in Canada and tilts the balance of power in favour of unions, yet this government has never been able to demonstrate a need for this legislation.
I can understand the government's desire to see some changes made to our labour laws, but in something as sensitive as labour relations it is important that you get it right the first time: to cooperate, to consult and to build consensus, and not the adversarial atmosphere and the polarization the government has created in this province today.
A task force of government, labour and management should have been set up to study the current situation and make recommendations for change through consensus. Indeed, the funny thing is that the Ontario Ministry of Labour has used that model. They have used the cooperative model of labour relations to study the grievance arbitration process. In that case they had a representative of labour, a representative of management and an arbitrator.
The Swan committee worked by consensus and only made recommendations that were supported by all three members. This committee's report provides evidence that a win-win result is possible when people are committed to working together to find mutually beneficial solutions to existing problems. Why was that not used in labour relations reforms?
If we're going to enhance labour-management cooperation in the province, as the minister desires and as we all desire, and if we're going to make our province more competitive on a global scale, this government must not favour one side and use the one-sided agenda; it must build a cooperative model of labour relations through a cooperative consensus-building model of policy development. Unfortunately, that was not done. That's why people in this province are so concerned about the impact of labour law reform.
1550
I'd like to turn my attention now to focus on some of the specific changes within Bill 40. As I said before, we already have the most comprehensive labour legislation in North America. The changes in Bill 40 have been cherry-picked from jurisdictions throughout North America and Europe. Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the reforms will improve cooperation between labour and management. In fact, because of the environment that's been created, we wonder how long it's going to take before we see the cooperation we had before.
The purpose of Bill 40 first and foremost is to facilitate the widespread unionization of Ontario workers and give more power to unions and union leaders. The bill provides absolutely no changes for employees who are opposed to being unionized. Indeed, many people in this province agree and are afraid that the changes will eventually take away the rights, the freedoms, of workers. The cards are going to be stacked against the 65% of Ontario workers who today, for many valid reasons, do not belong to a union and have no desire to join one. Bill 40 is going to reduce individual employee rights in favour of trade union rights, and that is the area that is of greatest concern to me.
The minister talked about the need to enhance basic human rights and freedoms. Unfortunately the legislation we have before us is not going to allow that to happen, and I will expand on that further in a few minutes.
Let's take a look at the changes. I'd like to start with the replacement worker proposal. These reforms concerning the replacement worker will make life interesting if there is a strike situation. Up until now, an employer in this province had certain options if his workers refused to accept his offer and went on strike. He could bring in management people from other stores or other plants and he could continue to operate. That will be prohibited under Bill 40. In the past, during prolonged strikes and extreme situations an employer could bring in new workers to keep the plant going. No way: Under the new replacement worker proposal, even if some of the unionized workers want to cross the picket line and continue to work during a strike, this will not be allowed by law.
By limiting an employer's ability to operate during a strike and servicing its customers, you take away -- and this is what is so important -- the ability to keep jobs in Ontario, because many key sectors, such as the automotive industry, have asked the government to consider the economic impact of putting critical supply at risk in a just-in-time manufacturing environment. Already because of these proposals some automotive parts manufacturers are experiencing discrimination because US buyers fear supply interruptions if Bill 40 is passed.
If you care about the ability to keep jobs in Ontario, I would suggest that you make some changes to the replacement worker section, because the replacement worker section is going to do the same thing in Ontario as it did in Quebec. What did it do in Quebec? Three things: It forced Quebec business to construct other plants in Ontario or south of the border to fulfil contractual obligations, it forced companies to move, or it forced them to close because of a strike they could not win.
How can management have any hope of reaching a reasonable solution when a strike effectively puts them out of business? How long can they stay in business with this kind of threat? How long will the workers in this province have jobs if companies close down? In today's tough economic times these provisions, which will contribute to further job loss and investment, are simply unacceptable.
Let's take a further look at the replacement worker section. As I said before, it's going to prohibit an employer from using not only managerial and supervisory personnel who are not employed at the struck location, but also any person hired or engaged between the day of notice to commence bargaining is given and the end of the strike or lockout as well as the striking or locked-out employees. They will no longer voluntarily be able to return to work, even if they choose, until the union decides to end the work stoppage. The only people who can work are the managers, the supervisors and the non-bargaining-unit employees at the struck location. However, they also have the right to refuse to do struck work.
Although the union could not invoke the restrictions on the use of replacement workers unless it has received a mandate to strike from 60% of those participating in a secret ballot vote, most strike votes are in excess of 60%. Even though the bill does exempt two categories of essential services from the replacement worker provision, employers who provide essential services will be required to notify the union of their intention to use replacement workers, and disputes will be settled by the OLRB on an expedited basis. Any dispute over replacements will be heard by a single vice-chair of the board. The burden of proving that an employer has not acted contrary to the section lies with the employer. What a shift in the balance of power to unions and the Ontario Labour Relations Board and away from employers. The balance has been tilted.
The consequences of this proposal to ban replacement workers are numerous, but I'd like to mention just a few. It will definitely tilt the economic balance of power in favour of unions. It's going to impede the operation of an employer. It's going to prevent the employer from operating his plant and filling customer orders. In essence, the strike's going to become an economic blockade. As well, if the auto parts manufacturers cannot meet their just-in-time delivery commitments, the Big Three auto makers may be forced to source their parts from the United States.
Since employees cannot cross a picket line to return to work even if they do not agree with their union representatives, it could create economic hardship. What about the single parent struggling to raise her or his family who wants to return to work, who doesn't agree with the union leadership? That person no longer has the right to work. This is a significant intrusion into employee freedom. This is an intrusion into basic human rights and freedoms. These individuals are going to be deprived of their right to work.
The NDP tells us that this replacement worker ban is going to reduce picket line violence. However, it may actually increase violence because of the right to refuse to do struck work. Strikers' anger is going to intensify since they know that the employees working during a strike or lockout could have said no.
Again, I'd like to refer to the Quebec impact of this reform -- because the government is so fond of quoting Quebec -- and remind us again that Quebec has had more strikes or lockouts than Ontario in 12 of the 14 years since Quebec's anti-scab law was implemented in 1978. And let's remember: Quebec has fewer people and a smaller economy. Ontario has had fewer strikes due to a balance between the employee's right to go on strike and the employer's right to continue operation during a strike. The number of days lost to strikes in Quebec is much larger.
Based on Quebec's experience with the replacement worker ban, it is anticipated, if Bill 40 is introduced in this province, that the number of days lost due to strike or lockout in this province is going to increase. Is that what we want, a loss of productivity?
Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Mr Speaker, I don't believe a quorum is present.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
1602
The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): A quorum is now present.
Mrs Witmer: I'd like to turn now to the changes in the certification process. Bill 40 is going to eliminate the post-application petitions. Membership support will be determined strictly at the date of application based on membership cards that are submitted by the union. No other Canadian jurisdiction prohibits the admission of petitions as evidence that an employee has changed his or her mind about his or her support for a trade union.
The bill is going to reduce the level of support required to trigger a representation vote from 45% to 40%. The bill will also eliminate the requirement to collect a $1 union membership fee. Now, once you sign a union card, bingo, you will be in a union. There will be no secret ballot, no cooling-off period.
As well, and this is something that needs to be given serious consideration, under section 8 of the act the board now has discretion to grant automatic certification to a union where the employer has contravened the act, if the illegal acts are serious enough that the true wishes of the employees are not likely to be ascertained and if the union satisfies the board that it has adequate support for collective bargaining.
Bill 40 is going to eliminate the adequate membership support provision. The Ontario Labour Relations Board will have the power to certify a union in order to remedy an unfair labour practice where the employer's conduct is such that the true wishes of the employees cannot be ascertained. The unfair labour practice section will apply to individuals acting on the employer's behalf. No other Canadian jurisdiction has this provision.
What are the consequences of the changes in the certification process? Combined, these changes will shift the certification process from an emphasis on determining what the true wishes of the employees are to an emphasis on facilitating union certification.
At the present time in this province, consumers are protected from high-pressure, door-to-door salesmen by a three-day waiting period, yet an employee who signs a union card will not have that same option of a three-day cooling-off period or a sober second thought. If this law is passed as intended, Ontario citizens will have more freedom and rights in buying a vacuum cleaner than an employee deciding whether he or she wants to belong to a union. Oft-times employees are not even aware of a union organizing drive until after the union has made an application to the board for certification.
The elimination now of post-application petitions will prevent these employees from having any voice on the issue of certification. This is enhancing employee participation? I would say not. This proposal virtually eliminates the opportunity for any constructive debate about union membership among the employee group, and the $1 union card fee that was used before, now eliminated, was designed to get employees thinking about the implications of their decision to join a union. It's important that employees make an informed choice. It's even more important now because the elimination is going to take the place of the petition.
Another consequence of the changes in the certification process occurs if an employer or a representative of the employer commits an unfair labour practice by mistake or out of ignorance of the provisions of the act; the union will be automatically certified. The board, which must facilitate collective bargaining as the new purpose clause sets out, will not even have to determine if the union has adequate membership support. This is going to be particularly onerous on small businesses as they do not have in-house legal expertise to assist them in avoiding an unintentional, unfair labour practice. The elimination of the membership support requirements makes it more likely that employees will be forced to join unions even if a majority are not in favour. This new certification process makes unionization easier and removes the right to change your mind after you've signed the union card.
The changes in the certification process, as you can see, are going to alter the current balance in legislation, which presently also protects the employee's right to remain or become non-union. Therefore, it is undermining his or her freedom of choice. These changes fail to recognize today's workplace realities, including the desire of employees for greater participation in decision-making and a commitment to quality customer service.
Why are all employees not being given an opportunity to participate in the decision-making of joining a union? These changes in the certification process give unions new rights without any accompanying responsibility. It leaves their duties, their role, their responsibilities totally unquestioned and untouched. Although an employee's right to join a union is a fundamental workplace right, equally important is the principle to make that decision freely and with complete and full information.
The decision to join a union is not a decision for the employer or the union; it is the employee's choice. Employees are entitled to know the significance of signing a union card. They are entitled to know whether they can change their minds. They are entitled to know what it means to be a member of a union and what they can expect from collective bargaining. Unfortunately the Bill 40 amendments to the certification procedure will severely limit the opportunity for information, reflection and a change of mind.
At a time when critical decisions are being made, the union organizer will be the only source of information. The most certain way to ensure fairness in this process is a secret ballot vote, the basic democratic decision-making procedure. Those who oppose a vote in a certification procedure argue that it's open to employer coercion. However, union organizing tactics that take place in secrecy hold the same prospect for abuse.
1610
The challenge that we in this Legislature need to adopt is to develop an open procedure that lets employees exercise their basic democratic rights without improper interference by either party, employer or union. Presently, Bill 40 fails the test of fairness and balance. Therefore, in order to achieve some balance and fairness, I introduced a private member's bill to allow for secret ballot votes for certification, ratification of contracts and the decision to go on strike.
I'd like to tell this House again why I introduced that bill. I am concerned about all workers in this province, all 100%. I strongly believe that if we are to have the fairness and equality the Minister of Labour has indicated he desires, all workers in this province should have the right to a free and democratic vote. Workers should have the right to decide for themselves, free of any interference or intimidation from any source, whether to have a union represent them, to accept a contract or to go on strike. Obviously a secret ballot vote is the only fair way of allowing workers to do so.
It's interesting. When I asked the minister last month about the possibility of a secret ballot vote, he responded by saying that no one had approached him to request a secret ballot vote. I pointed out to him at that time that throughout the public consultation process that he talks about he received a large number of submissions from groups and individuals that called for a secret ballot vote.
At this time I'd like to read some of the comments from individuals who have asked for a secret ballot vote.
I'd like to quote first from an employee in Guelph. He writes to the Premier, "Your government still has an opportunity to make the OLRA a truly enlightened piece of legislation, legislation that advances the interests of working people, legislation that will make the workplace more open, responsive and democratic." He goes on to say, "Until the right of a worker to join a union is absolutely uninterfered with, we will not have a democracy."
He goes on:
"I have been manipulated by unions and businesses alike during 20 working years. I never believed I had all the facts on the rare occasions I was allowed to cast a vote. If you truly want meaningful dialogue and workers to exert control over their own destinies, give them the right to a secret ballot vote whenever possible. By making this a mandatory provision, you will force businesses and unions alike to ensure that the workers receive all of the information necessary to make an informed decision. This provision will advance the interests of working people to make the workplace more open, responsive and democratic, and it will eliminate threats to these worthy goals.
"I am concerned, however, that this government is pandering to a union constituency to the detriment of everyone else. A worker will no longer be able to change his mind about joining a union. A worker will not necessarily have a chance to vote on becoming unionized. This legislation will only benefit unions, not workers.
"Please don't let that happen. Please demonstrate your belief in the ability of Ontario's working people to make rational decisions when provided with complete, factual information."
That's from a worker in Guelph. I received many other letters from individuals expressing the same desire to have confidence in the ability of working people in this province to make rational decisions when provided with factual, complete information. I know the minister received a copy of that letter, because I see he's been cc-ed.
As I said, the minister indicated he'd never heard about the secret ballot vote. I can tell him that the Ontario Public School Boards' Association has indicated, "We would suggest the only way to guarantee that the true wishes of employees regarding union certification will be determined is to have a secret ballot vote."
The Burkett report says, "In our view, the widespread adoption of a speedy government-supervised representation vote in all cases would go a long way to address a number of the issues raised by the ministry."
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business says: "The only amendment required to the Ontario Labour Relations Act is to provide for a supervised secret ballot vote for union certification. This single amendment will fully implement the throne speech commitment to ensure that unions are the freely chosen representatives of employees."
The Canadian Manufacturers' Association says: "If the government really wanted to allow for full and free expression as to whether the employees wanted to join a union, it would hold a secret ballot vote. Allow employees to make an informed choice."
I could go on and on. Time does not allow me to read any more letters from individuals or groups. The question I ask is, why will this government not allow employees to make an informed choice and give them all the facts? When you talk about basic human rights and freedoms, why are you denying them the right to the secret ballot vote? I hope I will get the answer and I hope the workers in this province will get the answer too, because they're asking to be involved in the decision-making. They're being asked to join a union and before they do they want all the facts.
Going on with the changes in the law: third-party property. Bill 40 is going to allow the organization of picketing on property belonging to a third party. This includes such things as industrial malls and shopping malls. It's only going to be allowed at the entrances and exits of the actual workplaces, and the union activity could be restricted by the Ontario Labour Relations Board if it causes a disruption.
However, no other Canadian jurisdiction has this third-party property provision. The Trespass to Property Act makes it an offence to be on the property of another without the owner's permission or to fail to leave the property when directed to do so by the owner or his or her agent. What is so frightening is that Bill 40 totally overrides the Trespass to Property Act. Bill 40 violates the rights of property owners and innocent consumers.
Businesses that share retail space but are not party to the labour dispute will have their businesses negatively affected. Under this provision, a union would be able to organize a subcontractor within a department store, such as a cosmetic counter within Eaton's, and it could disrupt customer shopping throughout the store.
This government must reconsider this change in access to third-party property and remember that the right of free access to property by owners and members of the public is a fundamental right. It must not sacrifice that fundamental right in an attempt to make unionization easier.
Let's look next at the consolidation of bargaining units. For decades, the Ontario Labour Relations Board has used the concept of appropriateness in determining a bargaining unit. Appropriateness includes considering the common interests of workers, their wishes, as well as the operation design of the employer's business.
1620
Bill 40 gives a trade union the opportunity to combine newly certified or existing bargaining units for the purpose of conducting collective bargaining. This criterion moves away from what is appropriate for employers and employees to what is most convenient for union leaders to organize. The end result may be bargaining structures that compromise the operation of the business and fail to take into account -- and this is what is so critical -- the wishes of the employees in each individual bargaining unit.
In today's workplace, an employee may or may not wish to be locked into a larger bargaining unit where power over collective action is going to rest with employees at other locations. Furthermore, it's going to greatly limit the ability of employers to keep their businesses running, because a minor dispute at any one facility could jeopardize the operation of the total business, since it's going to make it impossible to move work to another location to prevent interruption of supply to customers, even though the movement of work is going to be allowed under Bill 40. Again I say this reform is going to limit the ability of employers to keep their businesses running.
What are some of the other consequences of the consolidation of bargaining units? It's going to have an impact on the sectors of the economy where unions have failed to penetrate. This includes the retail, financial and insurance areas and other areas of the service sector where small establishments predominate. It's going to enhance union power.
If bargaining units are limited to an employer's operation in one geographic location, the union's bargaining strength is limited. However, if Bill 40 allows unions to organize at the branch or store level but bargain at the head office level after consolidation, there is going to be more power to unions and less for the individual.
Consolidation is going to make it easier for union organizers. Union convenience is going to take precedence over the most appropriate bargaining structure for the employer and the employees. The only communication between the bargaining units will be through the union and its agents. Individual employees are going to be denied access to information. Anything they receive is going to be through the union and its agents. This consolidation of bargaining units is going to mean that local autonomy is going to be lost and that individual employees are going to lose control over their destinies -- all this for the sake of enhancing union power.
Let's take a look at the full-time and the part-time unit proposal. This is going to allow people to be put into one single bargaining unit. No other Canadian jurisdiction has this provision. This amendment puts the interests of the trade unions ahead of individual employees. It would allow a union to request the merging of groups without the need to obtain majority support from both full- and part-time workers. The appropriate bargaining structure will be decided by the union, not the employees. Separate unions might be the preferred choice of the employees. The board has traditionally treated full- and part-time units separately because they do not share a community of interests, and that is now about to change.
Let's take a look at contract arbitration first. This change reduces the efforts by both parties to do their best to reach an agreement which would balance both their interests. Currently the act requires both parties to bargain in good faith, and only where the board finds that the process has been unsuccessful does the board direct that the dispute be settled by arbitration.
Bill 40 removes the existing criteria for access to first-contract arbitration. Now under Bill 40, on application by either the union or employer, access to first-contract arbitration will be automatic 30 days after the legal strike lockout date. These cases will be settled by private arbitration rather than by the board. If first-contract arbitration is initiated, employees will terminate a strike and employers will reinstate the employees. No other Canadian jurisdiction has this provision.
What are the consequences of this change in first-contract arbitration? Arbitration is no longer reserved for exceptional cases where bad faith has resulted in a failure of the bargaining process. Arbitration will be available in every contract dispute once the 30 days have passed. This amendment will facilitate union organization by allowing unions to promise that employees will not have to go on strike to reach a first contract, and if you have a union that's weak and vulnerable, it can simply wait 30 days and it can have the dispute arbitrated.
This is going to take away the obligation from labour and from management to resolve difficult negotiating issues. It's going to turn over that responsibility that properly belongs to both parties, and it's going to allow for cooperation and partnership to be turned over, to a third party. This is going to be detrimental to the collective bargaining process and it's going to work against the goal of greater labour-management cooperation, a goal the minister said he was striving for, a goal people in this province want.
The other thing this first collective agreement does is to set the framework for all future collective bargaining. Once arbitration is instituted, the employer will have no say in the terms of the first collective agreement, and do you know what? Terms may be decided without any regard to the real cost of an employer's business or the competitive environment in which he operates.
This amendment significantly impacts free collective bargaining in order to rescue unions from situations where they have either inadequate support or inadequate ability to achieve their bargaining demands, even if there is no evidence of support for the union. This first-contract arbitration does nothing more than facilitate unionization, since it almost guarantees that there will not be a strike or that it will be short.
Let's turn now to the purpose clause. The purpose clause is an addition to the existing preamble to the act. The purpose clause, instead of acting as a guide to the board in the interpretation of the act, will define the Ontario Labour Relations Board's mandate or give the board its marching orders.
The purpose clause will have the following components. It's going to ensure that workers can freely organize by facilitating the right to join unions. However, what it's also going to do is encourage the process of collective bargaining so as to enhance the ability to negotiate to improve terms and conditions of employment, the extension of cooperative approaches between employers and unions in adapting to change and increased employee participation in the workplace.
This section speaks for the first time to the results of collective bargaining, not just to the establishment of ground rules. Again this purpose clause makes unionization easier, it promotes the interests of unions, and again no other Canadian jurisdiction has this provision.
Of particular concern is the fact that board decisions will be tipped towards unions, as it is now being directed to facilitate collective bargaining and encourage the process of collective bargaining for the purpose of improving their terms and conditions of employment. It may force the board to rule against employers who take hard bargaining positions and make it more difficult for the board to recognize the occasional necessity of concession bargaining.
This ultimately could contribute to job loss. The purpose clause gives the OLRB input into many business issues that were not previously possible. The board is going to now play a much more active role in future labour relations issues and, as a result, the composition of the board is going to become very important.
Let's turn now to the Ontario Labour Relations Board. Bill 40 is going to introduce sweeping new powers for the board. These new powers are going to include the authority to settle one or more terms of a collective agreement where the existing duty to bargain in good faith has been violated and the board considers other remedies insufficient to counter the violation.
It gives the board the authority to grant automatic certification where the act has been contravened during an organizing campaign, without requiring, as I said before, any evidence of adequate membership support. Even if there is no evidence that all the employees want to join a union, certification is automatically going to take place.
1630
The board is going to have the authority to grant such interim relief as it considers appropriate without a full oral hearing. It's also going to have the authority to consolidate bargaining units in separate geographic locations and to combine full- and part-time employees into a single bargaining unit, but it no longer has to consider common interests.
It has the authority to rule on essential services for the replacement worker provisions, and in order to protect union organizers, at the request of a union the requirement to hold expedited hearings regarding any complaint of employee discipline or discharge during an organizing drive.
What are some of the consequences of extending these sweeping new discretionary powers to the Ontario Labour Relations Board? It's going to transform the board from an impartial judicial body into an advocate for labour. These new powers are going to be guided by the pro-union purpose clause. The union will be able to influence the government as to the appointment of board members. The board will have the power to impose a settlement on contract clauses rather than ruling on the narrower issue of whether bargaining was in bad faith.
The board currently attempts to establish collective bargaining structures that balance an employee's right to unionize with an employer's business environment. This results presently in more productive collective bargaining over time, or it also results at the present time in the partnership that the NDP government states is its primary objective. However, with Bill 40, the hope for that partnership continues to fade as the parties that have a stake in the issues are removed and power is given to a third party. I believe that workplace partners should solve their own problems whenever possible.
If we take a look at arbitration, Bill 40 is going to empower an arbitrator to determine all questions of fact or law that arise, to enforce a written settlement of a grievance, and to fix the dates for the commencement or the continuation of hearings without the consent of parties. Bill 40 also establishes a new consensual mediation process. No other Canadian jurisdiction gives arbitrators the power to determine all questions of fact and law. No other Canadian jurisdiction gives arbitrators the power to enforce written settlements and the authority to make orders and directions. Bill 40 gives our arbitrators sweeping new powers.
Let's turn now to contract services. The successorship services of section 63 have been found not to apply to circumstances in which work is contracted into the workplace or is subsequently transferred to another employee in a tendering process. Any existing bargaining rights in collective agreements are eliminated when the work is transferred.
However, Bill 40 amends both the Labour Relations Act and the Employment Standards Act to provide successor rights for contract tendering similar to those that apply to the sale of a business: "If the predecessor employer is bound by a collective agreement, the successor employer is bound by it." This applies "with respect to services provided directly or indirectly by or to a building owner or manager that are related to servicing the premises, including building cleaning services, food services and security services."
If a successor employer replaces a previous employer who is providing services at the premises, the successor employer shall make reasonable offers of available positions to the employees.
The consequences of these amendments to provide successor rights for contract tendering will eliminate the competitive value inherent in the tendering process. A new contractor will not be able to offer a business a lower price for the service, as it will be bound by the wage levels of the existing collective agreement. Also, if the previous contractor was replaced because his work was unsatisfactory, the new contractor is now bound to hire the existing employees, and as a result, the service that has been provided that has been unsatisfactory is unlikely to improve.
These then are some of the new changes that are part of Bill 40. All of the changes, as I've indicated, are going to be guided by the new purpose clause that's going to promote the interests of unions over those of employees. They're going to be controlled by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, which has been given sweeping new power.
Let's remember that at the present time the chair and vice-chair of the board are politically appointed by the government of the day. They are not accountable in any way and there are no public hearings into their appointment. Obviously if we're going to give the board a new mandate and sweeping new powers and allow it to play a prominent role in the workplace of Ontario, these individuals who serve on the Ontario Labour Relations Board must now be selected by a process that is fair and acceptable to all parties. There should be public confirmation hearings on all nominees to the OLRB.
As well, when it's amended, Bill 40 must recognize our traditions of accountability of government officials. It must recognize our freedom of speech, our freedom of association, freedom of information, recognition of private property, secret democratic ballots as well as the rights of an employer to operate a business and create and sustain jobs for employees, as well as remembering the right of an employee to work.
Unfortunately, after a four-month consultation process, the government has ignored many of these traditions. It has ignored many of the representations by people who have made them, people who are concerned about jobs and investment in this province, and it has introduced into this House a bill little changed from the original 30-item wish list of last March that was introduced by the Minister of Labour.
Bill 40 still does not include one proposal from the business community or any other individual. The government failed to genuinely listen to or address the very real concerns of the public. It ignored the suggestions for change that were put forward, the request for a secret democratic ballot to decide union certification, the request for consumer protection measures for employees, and it rejected the request for a fair and balanced process to analyse the act to identify any real problems with its workings and come up with consensus solutions.
The strongest employer suggestion focus, on putting economic recovery first so that more Ontarians have the basic benefit, a job, was ignored. This government didn't listen to the business community. It didn't listen to the community organizations. It didn't listen to individuals or the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. It went ahead and listened to the union agenda.
1640
After looking at the changes, I realized they're not isolated reforms. They are a strategy for union organizers to assist them in unionization. They do not allow workers more input in the decision-making that directly affects them, as the minister has indicated he wanted. They have the opposite effect. They remove the individual worker from the decision-making process in favour of bigger unions and more union leadership control.
Unfortunately, none of the principles of drafting good legislation was used in this bill. There was no principle of cooperation, no attempt to facilitate a process of cooperation. The entire discussion forced all participants to work off only one agenda, the union agenda. There was no principle of balance. The effort to have something in there for both sides is missing. There was no principle of objectifiable and verifiable labour problems. What problems does this bill respond to? None. None was ever shown by this government to exist.
In conclusion, this government has failed to recognize that the number one priority of people in this province is jobs, not change to the collective bargaining process. Maybe that's what the Environics poll showed yesterday: that you're on the wrong track. People want jobs, not labour law reform. That's what people have told me they're looking for.
I'm extremely concerned that this bill is going to make it more difficult for businesses to compete. I'm concerned that the government never did an economic impact study. I would like to tell the government that the workers of this province will be better served by creating jobs, not by creating a business climate which discourages investment and job creation.
It is unfortunate that this government has demonstrated neither a willingness to accept any input from people in this province nor a commitment to ensuring there is a balance and a recognition of fundamental rights in the legislation. I urge the government not to proceed further with Bill 40. I urge the government to work with business and labour to develop changes that serve the needs of all workplace partners and ensure the economic viability of the province. What we need in this province is jobs.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The honourable member's time is now complete. Questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Sudbury.
Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Actually, my comments relate more to some of the comments that were made by my honourable friend yesterday in relation to the Quebec labour law. Since 1978, she said, over one million more days were lost in Quebec than in Ontario. While that is certainly true, there are parts that have not been stated that I think should be out there as well.
First of all, the prevalence of strikes in Quebec prior to 1978 was extremely high. It's generally true that this was the case, and since 1978 there have been fewer lost days. I think that's the key in terms of looking at the number and the percentage of lost days.
In 1976, in Quebec 1.15% of all working time was lost due to work stoppages, but in every year since that time -- and this is a point to remember -- this percentage has been less than .5%. I mean, given that Quebec has had very volatile experience in the labour field, the anti-scab or replacement worker legislation has certainly calmed things down.
In fact, Ghislain Dufour, who is the president of the employers association, was given the opportunity of proceeding on a Supreme Court action and opted not to proceed for the very reason that the industrial relations field had calmed down and he didn't want to ruin a good thing. That is basically a quote.
I think too that you should know that those million and more lost days since 1978 -- it's over 14 years -- were due primarily to two public strikes, one of them with the métro. Private sector strikes have actually been less than they ever were prior to 1978. So when you are giving that information out, it would be most appreciated if you gave it all.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The honourable member for St Catharines.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question to the member for Waterloo North relates to the rule changes in the Legislative Assembly and how she may feel they have restricted her ability to play an appropriate role in the Legislative Assembly in regard to this bill and perhaps future bills.
I want to know whether she believes that the rules governing the Legislature now, the rules that were imposed by Premier Rae, the man who defended the rights of the opposition so strongly and utilized every rule in the Legislative Assembly book in order to delay legislation -- whether she feels that in this particular instance the new rules which restrict her to only 90 minutes to deal with an important piece of legislation in fact are restrictive and do diminish her rights as a member.
Second, I want to know, now that the House will not sit as many days as it used to as a result of the dictum of Premier Rae, whether she feels that will restrict her right to be able to deal with legislation of this kind -- this bill and other bills.
I want to know whether she feels, given the fact that Premier Rae, even though he has a majority government, has given the right to his own ministers to impose on the House a restriction on the amount of time provided for each bill, that 30 minutes is sufficient for all members of the Legislature, outside of those who lead off the debate, to deal with legislation of this kind.
I want to know whether she feels it's appropriate that the Premier has taken away from the Speaker of the House, the impartially elected individual in the House, elected by members of this House, the opportunity to decide if sufficient debate has taken place.
Last, I want to know whether she feels that the concentration of power in the executive branch -- that is, in the Premier's office -- is healthy for our democracy and healthy when dealing with legislation of this kind. I'd be surprised if she felt that was a positive move on the part of the Premier of this province.
Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm very pleased to rise this afternoon and commend the member for Waterloo North for her excellent presentation this afternoon and yesterday afternoon. She has steadfastly and consistently espoused or put forward views on behalf of the rights of all workers in this province, more strongly than any other member of this House, I believe. She went into the specific provisions of Bill 40 and explained her specific concerns on specific provisions.
When members of this House who are not the leadoff speaker for their party get a chance to debate this, when we have 30 minutes, it's going to be very difficult for many of us to get into the specifics. I think with the government's new rule changes, it will difficult for us to go into the specifics of the bill and outline our specific concerns on the various provisions. We will be limited to making general remarks about the thrust of the bill, which I don't think is as important, generally, as the specifics.
The member indicated in her speech, and I firmly agree with her on this, that the government has not yet established in a way that makes sense to anybody why it's going ahead with this. Their excuses are very limp, very transparent. We have no other conclusion to draw except that this is a bill that is to empower their union friends. I think that's very clear to anybody who looks at this bill.
I think their failure to conduct an impact study is very glaring. When they refuse to accept the results of independent impact studies and yet they refuse to conduct one of their own, it demonstrates that they're afraid of the results of that impact study.
They have demonstrated with Bill 40 their callous disregard for workers who will lose their jobs as a result of Bill 40 and the new jobs that will not be created as a result of a lack of investment coming forward. They have demonstrated their fundamental lack of understanding of how a market economy works.
I'm pleased to once again commend the member for Waterloo North.
The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant. The honourable member for Chatham-Kent -- Essex-Kent.
Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): Essex-Kent, Mr Speaker, but we do work close together.
I would certainly like to respond to the member for Waterloo North. I really believe that she means well, but I think she is totally misinformed. If you hear the members from over there, it would lead you to believe that in organized workplaces, they don't work together. Maybe some of them who pretend they are representing all corporations and all workers should talk to some management in the Big Three and see how those management people in the Big Three have taken input from the workers to improve productivity, quality, and health and safety. It has proven that they can work together, because the unions and the union leaders are not going to bite the hand that feeds them. They are just as much concerned about the economy and the welfare of that corporation as anybody else.
They talk about impact studies. How about the impact study on free trade and the GST, which have done more harm to this economy than anything else has ever done or anything we'll put in this piece of legislation? Very briefly, here's the Tory philosophy. "I think we're at a point where fairness is a luxury" -- Garth Turner, Tory MP. Here's another quote: "The Canadian worker can either work harder for less money or not work at all." That's really what competitive means and that's how they feel competitive. I think it's a shame to get up here and pretend you work on behalf of the workers in this province. I think it's kind of ridiculous to even get up here and talk that way.
1650
The Acting Speaker: This completes questions and/or comments. The honourable member for Waterloo North has two minutes in response.
Mrs Witmer: I'll respond first to the member for St Catharines, and I can indicate to him that I don't normally take 90 minutes to speak. Actually, I do agree with some of the rule changes. However, on this particular issue, I can tell you I did not feel I adequately covered the topic given to me. I certainly could have used more time. However, that is the exception, I can assure you. Usually I speak for much less than 90 minutes in this House. I don't see the need to talk for much longer.
However, in response to the member for Essex-Kent, I think what we have to remember when we talk about Bill 40 is that the issue is not whether unionization is good or whether unionization is bad. I think we all recognize that unions have a right to exist. They've played a useful purpose in the province. I think what we're talking about is the manner in which this change has taken place and also the impact of this change.
You talked about the impact studies concerning free trade and the GST that were conducted by the federal government. I guess the one thing I would say in defence is that at least that government selected to do impact studies, and I would hope the provincial government would still do an economic impact study of Bill 40.
I hope, if this government does nothing else in the area of Bill 40, that it will give very serious consideration to the secret ballot vote. All of us in this House want to promote basic human rights and freedoms. We want the individual to fully understand and participate in the process. I think we can only do that if we give individuals all the information and if we allow them, free of the union and free of the employer, to make their own decision, and that can only be done by means of a secret ballot vote.
The Acting Speaker: Before I ask for further debate, I want to remind members that we now have up to 30 minutes to participate in the debate, and then we will proceed on to further debate.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I can assure you I'll have plenty of time to relay the message I want to get across to the Legislature in 30 minutes.
To start off, I want to congratulate Bob Mackenzie, our Minister of Labour, as well as the parliamentary assistant, Sharon Murdock, for bringing forth this legislation. For me it goes back over 30 years that I've been a member of organized labour and the unions. We've had a concern that neither one of the governments that were in power for a large number of years managed to bring forth, or had the will to bring forth, legislation that would protect workers when they were on the picket line and that would prevent people from being shot and beaten up and one thing or another.
The example of that is the fact that --
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): What kind of nonsense is that?
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): That is absolute stupidity. You display your ignorance every time you open your mouth.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order.
Mr Wood: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I didn't realize we were going to get a reaction of that kind.
In 1963 there was a monument put up in Reesor, in my riding, where three people were killed and they had families. They had relatives who are still mourning their deaths as a result of replacement workers who were asked to do the work the strikers were refusing to do until they had what they considered to be a fair contract. There were also eight other people who were shot and put in hospital. If the people across want to view the monument, I suggest you take a ride up Highway 11 and look at the example of that.
I followed the member for Mississauga North, who spoke for an hour and a half. The Conservative Party member for Waterloo North also spoke for an hour and a half. As I said at the beginning, I won't be that long in bringing my comments because I won't even attempt to use the whole half-hour.
I want to relay the amount of concern of people who have brought forth letters. I've had over 600 letters saying, "Len, you were elected on a commitment that you would bring forth legislation that would be fair to the working men and women in this province." It would be legislation that would allow ordinary men and women who used to approach me when I was president of the labour council and say, "There's a problem with this or a problem with that in the workforce."
My argument used to be, "Well, you should think seriously about joining a union." The argument came back: "Yes, but I don't want to get fired. The minute I make an application to join a union so they are going to be able to help me and I'll be able to use the shop steward, the bosses are going to fire me." Legislation of this kind is going to make it easier for the working men and women throughout this province. They'll be able to look up to something and feel rewarded with this type of legislation.
Last year there was an example of how business, labour and the community all worked together and pulled together. As a matter of fact, they were meeting down at the Sutton Place Hotel exactly a year ago now, starting to put together a collective labour agreement needed to complete the sale of the company at Spruce Falls. The new company now is Spruce Falls Inc.
That is an example of how in that particular case they're saying: "Well, unions are no good. They're this and they're that."
Mr Phillips: Nobody is saying that.
Mr Wood: Some of the comments that have come across -- some of the business community is saying there is too much strength. All of my life, all I've heard are the good things they have done for their own members and their members' families to build this province and make it strong.
There are other examples more recent than 1963. There was use of replacement workers at that time and, as I said before, people were shot and they died. Eight other people were shot and recovered from it. There were incidents just last winter where dangerous driving charges were put against one of the managers of the employer, where they tried to bring a truck through the picket line at the same time as they were bringing in replacement workers in the Hearst area from around the Brantford area down south. It was a violent confrontation. We managed to get the Minister of Labour involved in it and they brought it to a conclusion after a number of weeks.
That situation probably never would have lasted nearly that long had we had the legislation they have in Quebec. An example in Quebec is that since 1976 they've seen the disappearance of picket-line violence and over 95% of the union contracts are signed without a strike.
Mr Turnbull: There is more violence in Quebec with the anti-scab legislation. Yes, there is. You cooked the books.
Mr Wood: The facts are that they don't relate to what is actually happening, other areas where the use of replacement workers are banned. It makes it speedier for contract settlements, when they are on strike, to be wrapped up.
In 1985 I can recall very plainly where 25 to 30 women decided they were being treated unfairly in the workplace. They wanted to join a union and in an attempt to get a first contract, they had to take to the picket line. The bank decided it was going to bring in replacement workers and drag out the strike. At that time there was no legislation in place to prevent it from happening. The government in power at that time had taken the same approach as the Tories had taken for 42 years: We'll let the violence and the pushing and shoving and the hurting and pain take place.
1700
As a result, the community had to take things into its own hands. It was a caisse populaire that was on strike. It called a special meeting. They put over 1,700 people in the halls -- they couldn't use just one hall; they had to have a number of halls -- and they removed the board of directors, installed a new board of directors and in turn had to remove some of the people from management. Within a week they had a collective agreement in place and the women were able to go back and enjoy the work they were doing.
I believe the legislation we've brought forward is going to mean harmony and peace between labour, management and the corporate sector. They'll understand what the law is and I believe we'll have the same results as in other provinces, by disallowing the use of replacement workers, or as you say when you're out on the picket line, because I spent time out on the picket line, the use of scabs for crossing picket lines. Those are some of the comments I wanted to make as far as the use of replacement workers is concerned.
To go on, I believe the workers, men and women, in this province are going to be far better off by being given the right to be able to join a union of their choice and not have the fear of the bosses retaliating against them, as has happened before. As I said, I've been involved with labour and belonged to a union for the biggest part of my 32 years in the workforce.
I know I'm not alone. I know there are other members in the Legislature who have come from the same background as I have, who go out and help men and women, whether they're working in restaurants or whether they're working in other low-paying jobs, to help them deal with some of the health and safety issues in their workplaces. They haven't had a union there to be able to turn to to help them out, so they've gone to the labour council or they've gone to other unions and have said, "Don't use my name," because of this and that, "I'm fearful for my job, but I want you to help me out in those areas," and we have done that over the years.
The commitment was made to the workers, whether they were organized or unorganized, that if and when we ever had an NDP government elected in Ontario we would make some of the changes that were needed to make the working men and women in this province feel more comfortable and more at ease.
Some of the arguments we're getting from across are that business is unhappy with it. If you have a business with 10 people, your business manager or your owner is nobody without those hardworking men and women who are slaving down below in order to make sure the company either breaks even or makes a profit. Without those hardworking men and women that is not possible. So whether the workers at this point in time are unionized or non-unionized, they play a large role in contributing to the economy and to the profits that are needed to make sure this province is going to grow out of the worst recession in the last 50 years.
I'm looking forward to the five weeks, which will be 20 days of public hearings that are going to be held across the province. I know we're going to have groups that are going to be coming in and telling us: "Well, you've let us down as the government. You haven't gone far enough. We want you to strengthen this area or that area, to do what you promised you were going to do." We realize we're also going to have some people from business who might want amendments to water it down.
But at the end of the day I believe we've made a commitment to the working men and women in this province. We're going to proceed with it, and I know at the end of that time everybody is going to be that much better off with the amendments they're bringing in to the OLRA under Bill 40.
At this time, I'll give my spot to somebody else because, as I said, there are going to be five weeks of hearings taking place around the province. There's going to be a lot of debate and proposals brought forward, and I know there will be all kinds of time then to listen to the people.
The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments.
Mr Phillips: I really don't think the member, in his comments, appreciates what this bill is all about. If we look at amendments to the labour relations bills -- the Minister of Labour is smiling over there. I have no confidence in the Minister of Labour. I remember the Minister of Labour went around this province talking about Bill 208 and dragging out coffins and all that sort of stuff. Then he gets in as minister and I find this ad in the newspaper, "Labour Minister Praises New Workplace Legislation," and Mr Mackenzie's picture on it praising the dickens out of the legislation.
He went around the province dragging coffins out and accusing me of killing people. You have no credibility with me, Minister, so sitting in the House and heckling does you no good. I found that offensive in the extreme.
Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): This is an absolute lie.
Mr Phillips: Back to your comments, there are 32 amendments proposed here. Every single one of these amendments goes in one direction. Any reasonable person out there would say: "Listen, if you're going to amend the Labour Relations Act in this province, surely there are some balances that should take place. Surely you don't have 32 amendments all in favour of one side."
If one looks at the history of amendments to the Labour Relations Act in this province, they are balanced. If one looks at labour relations in this province in terms of peace and harmony in the workplace, it by and large has been pretty good in this province. It doesn't mean you can't improve it, but to have 32 major amendments all favouring one side, does that make any sense to anyone in this province, that it is all a problem on one side?
Surely even the member would acknowledge that perhaps there are a few improvements that could be made that could help the other side. So what we've got here is a total imbalance, a total payoff to the people who have made their contribution to the party. I understand that but let's call it what it is.
Mr Mahoney: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I regrettably heard the Minister of Labour sit there and make a comment in regard to my colleague's remarks, and I think his words were, "That's a complete lie." That word is unparliamentary, Mr Speaker. I would ask you to ask him to withdraw that remark.
The Deputy Speaker: I haven't heard the word at all --
Mr Mahoney: Well, I heard it.
The Deputy Speaker: -- so it would be totally unfair for me to ask --
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I said that.
The Deputy Speaker: If the minister did say so, perhaps he will apologize.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: Mr Speaker, I did say the statement he'd made was a lie. I withdraw that.
The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The matter is settled.
Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I would like to refer to some of the remarks the third party keeps shouting across here in respect to the comments of the member from Cochrane. I find their rhetoric about the changes in the labour amendment act absolutely alarming.
I just want to go back -- I'm not that old -- to January 1914 and an issue of the Industrial Canada magazine. Get this; I can't believe it, but this is the rhetoric that's coming from there. It said: "One of the evils which may result from workmen's compensation is the danger that good workmen may become hypochondriacs. Imagination has a powerful influence over the body and it is inevitable that a workman's imagination may be unduly stimulated if he knows that he will be paid a large part of his wages during illness."
That's the type of rhetoric you people are full of. I'm sick to death of it. I want to commend the member for Cochrane North; what a wonderful speech from the heart. You people have no hearts. You don't know what it's like. Go out there and see the statue the member for Cochrane North is talking about. You don't know what it is to be beaten on the picket line. You don't know what it is to have people killed. You have no idea at all about labour and about unions and it's about time you knew.
1710
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I too would like to respond to the statements of the member for Cochrane North. I think a number of people who are probably watching this debate on their televisions would be questioning when the member for Cochrane North cites as the reason for these changes events which took place in this province in 1963 or which were found in the province of Quebec in 1978 or, for those who were watching the minister's opening comments yesterday, events that took place in the Northwest Territories or, in fact in the just previous response by a member of the New Democratic Party, a statement that was made in the year 1914.
I think those who are watching on TV who have asked the question, "Why these changes?" are alarmed at the response given by the New Democratic labour party of this province, that the reasons they are stating for these changes are statements made in 1914, events which took place in 1963 and events and situations which took place in the Northwest Territories and in the province of Quebec.
People are reminding this government that this is the province of Ontario, that there is now the right to join a union and that these changes shift the balance, the impact of which will cost jobs for many people in this province.
The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Your time has expired.
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): One of the important things that I know the member for Cochrane North would have liked to put across is that a lot of people are not out there saying, "I need a union right away." What provokes individuals, even in strikes and that, is that the urge is there by management or whatever to discourage people from participating in trying to organize a workplace. This is what you're trying to do: give to those individuals who are very fearful the right to organize because, as they're not protected under any laws to organize, they become very fearful. That's why you do a lot of organizing around kitchen tables. I know other members never have experienced this. I went through it for a number of years, of organizing workplaces.
You do not organize workplaces where management and unions and the workers in that workplace work very cooperatively together. The employer also understands that paying a decent wage gets a decent return. You get less absenteeism. They understand that. You cannot organize workplaces like that.
The workplaces we're talking about organizing and the legislation providing that are those where workers are being mistreated, exploited, dominated as women and take advantage of that, or where they segregate and put different nationalities that collide working together.
This is the kind of atmosphere that's in there. These workers are looking for help, for somebody to protect their rights, even forming an association. The business community has their associations. It's called the chamber of commerce. It's all right for them to "unionize," but it's not all right for the workers who are looking for moderate increases in their wages.
I listened to some of the concerns that were expressed. Let's make it very clear: The legislation will only be examined by individuals in workplaces when their employers are mistreating them. That's the only time.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Cochrane North has two minutes to reply.
Mr Wood: Thank you for the comments of the member for Durham East, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, the member for Chatham-Kent and the member for Mississauga North.
In summarizing, I just want to say that in my riding of Cochrane North, we don't necessarily need all the 32 amendments that one of the members mentioned, because close to 85% of the workers belong to a union, whether they work for the town, the hospital, the fire department, the paper mill, the pulp mill, the sawmill or in the bush. But there's also the fear that when a strike does come up, they want to have their democratic right and walk the picket line without fear of violence or death.
Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Fear of not having a job.
Mr Wood: Or of not having a job; that the company will decide to keep the replacement workers and not bring them back afterwards.
I've also had some discussions with the manager from Shoppers Drug Mart. All the managers were called down to Toronto to give them a pep talk on how they were going to have to beat up the NDP government on the amendments that were coming forth. After I talked to him for about five or 10 minutes, he said: "I didn't realize that. I'm quite satisfied now, after you've explained to me. You won't hear anything more from me at all, at all."
The chambers of commerce in my riding understand it and they haven't been making a big fuss about it. I believe once it is explained that all we're talking about is the right to choose what is fair and just for the hardworking men and women in this province, that they're going to be able to continue to work with dignity and know where they can turn to if they need assistance from their shop steward or their union president without any fear of retaliation --
The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member for Mississauga West has 30 minutes.
Mr Mahoney: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Mr Hope: I hope you're going to say what your dad would say.
Mr Mahoney: You're asking me what my dad would say. You can rest assured that I'll be sharing some quotes from his career during the next 30 minutes, so if you want to pay attention, you just might learn something. I doubt it, though.
I've only got 30 minutes as a result of these draconian rule changes that have been brought into place, so I want to move on to some issues that I think are rather pertinent to this debate. Whether you want to argue about some of the fine points of the legislation or not, in my sense it's a little bit of a moot point. The real issue here is the polarization this government, with this bill more than anything else, has created in the community at large.
I believe there was a poll conducted recently that showed that of the people who are aware of the effects of this bill, substantial numbers in the society at large, even in the labour movement, are opposed to it. There are reasons they're opposed to it.
It was interesting that the member for Oshawa East, I think it is, went back to 1914 to drag up some statement which I guess he was purporting was stated by one of the Tory members or his predecessors. I'm not quite sure, Gordie, but you're going to have a stroke one of these days if you're not a little careful. As much as he's on that side, Mr Speaker, I wouldn't like to see his seat fall empty due to such a catastrophe. Maybe some other reasons would be appropriate.
In relation to this issue -- and the issue is the relationship between labour, government, business and the community at large -- I too have done a bit of historical research. It's rather interesting at this time in our history that Premier Rae is off debating about what kind of Senate structure we're going to have in this country because in fact there is some history of the Senate and the labour movement.
1720
In fact, the first two labour senators -- the reason I want to talk about this is that this goes back to 1917 --
Interjection.
Mr Mahoney: I'm not that old either, to Mr Mills, but it gives a sense of the evolution of the labour movement.
Some of you know I have a background that goes well beyond 30 years involved in the labour movement, involved actively, through my family. My Uncle Jim in Sault Ste Marie worked in the steel plant for over 50 years, the longest-serving member at Algoma Steel, Jim Mahoney. I have George Currie, my uncle, who worked there for over 40 years. Members of their families worked there, my father worked there, my brother worked there, and all of them were members, and proud members, of the United Steelworkers of America. Even I, when I was in school and had summer jobs, worked for Dosco Steel and had to join and did join the union to work for that particular company.
So there is some background, and when you folks over there try to claim some self-righteous control or ownership of the labour movement, I reject that. Because we on this side of the House disagree with some of the policies you're putting in place, you suggest we're union-bashing, when in reality that's nonsense. I represent many members of the trade labour movement in my riding, and I represent them as best I can, because I'm not bound by some ideology. I don't have to go to a policy conference in Hamilton to get my marching orders, unlike the members opposite. I care about their working conditions and I care about their ability to earn a living and to raise families --
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): You don't.
Mr Mahoney: Well, you can be smart if you want and suggest I don't, but that's truly unfair and untrue, because I do care about that and so do other members on this side. Because we are concerned about the condition of the economy, because we are concerned about companies going bankrupt, because we are concerned about the predominance of militancy taking over the higher office of the labour movement -- and I say that and would say that standing shoulder to shoulder with my father, if he were here. The militancy that is taking over is very unfortunate in this country.
What's happened? Tell me a time in past history when a senior labour leader was a vice-president of the New Democratic Party. It didn't happen, because they understood --
Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): That's not true, Steve.
Mr Mahoney: That is true. They understood that they had to deal with Lester Pearson or John Robarts. They understood that their political responsibility was not based on partisan politics but was rather based on their responsibility to the men and women in the rank and file of the union and that voting along party lines with a socialist government did not always serve the needs and the interests of the members of the rank and file.
The labour leaders who were pragmatic in history, who understood that the best strike is the one that didn't have to take place, who understood that living on strike pay, because they too lived on strike pay -- I can remember sitting around Christmas in the late 1950s wondering why there were no presents in the Mahoney household, a family of nine children, and being told that my father was on strike pay, and he was the national director -- interesting.
Mr Turnbull: It doesn't happen today.
Mr Mahoney: It sure doesn't happen today, and maybe if those university-educated labour leaders who are starting to become so militant would have to sit on the picket line and not just go for a media photo opportunity, not just go for politics --
Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Talk about the bill.
Mr Mahoney: This is about the bill. This is exactly about the bill, because, Mr Speaker --
Mr Mammoliti: You are bashing.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. If you want to take the floor, you'll have the right to do so after 30 minutes.
Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, I understand them getting upset, because you see, I am substantially, perhaps more than the member shouting over there, steeped a little bit in the history of this, and I understand it.
Mr Mammoliti: Oh, come on.
Mr Mahoney: Well, I am. I grew up in it, and when you people try to claim, in your sanctimonious way, that you're going to protect all the workers, you make me laugh.
Mr Mammoliti: Let's see how you vote on it then.
Mr Mahoney: I can tell you how I'm going to vote on this. I'm going to vote against this and I'm going to do everything I can to stop you from passing it with your arrogant majority, everything I can do. Because, Mr Speaker --
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr Mahoney: I started to talk a little bit about the history of the labour movement. I'll tell you about it, if you want to be quiet for a moment.
"Canada's first two labour senators were perfect models of the kind of trade union officials deemed worthy of a place in the upper chamber in 1917. Gideon Robertson" -- this is from an article by Myer Siemiatycki in a magazine called This Magazine, and it's on the labour movement. It talks about the evolution in the relationship, and there are some very interesting quotes that this Minister of Labour should listen to.
"Not surprisingly, both men were leaders of railway unions. By the First World War, Canada had some 15 unions, which were held up by the government as models of what they called 'safe and sane' unions. In 1913 the Labour department described the leaders of these unions as 'men of excellent reputation and proven ability, and the comparative rarity of strikes in the ranks of the workers concerned is perhaps the best testimony of the skill of the respective chief officers....' Governments, then as now, had a particular liking for trade union officials who used their positions to avoid rather than stimulate labour unrest." Interesting philosophy; they actually tried to avoid strikes and labour unrest.
"Robertson was vice-president of the Order of Railroad Telegraphers for Canada, while Murdock held the same post for the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen."
Interjection.
Mr Mahoney: Someone can get excited if he wants, but if he wants to deny his history -- if you want to claim that you can in any way substantially represent the men and women of the trade labour movement today, then you had better accept the history of the trade labour movement, with all its warts and with all its good points.
"Addressing the 1919 convention of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada in his capacity of Labour minister, Senator Robertson declared: 'For the period of 12 to 15 years in which I have in my humble way attempted to assist and advance and promote the cause of labour in Canada, I have long since come to the conclusion that all classes of society in our country have rights, and that we must at all times exercise due respect for the rights of the other fellow.' After James Murdock's appointment as Minister of Labour in 1921, his first statement echoed the views of his...predecessor." This is very important. He said, "'Canada needs, must have, and will have, cooperation between employer and employee.'"
You see, that is the nub of the argument. What we have such difficulty in understanding is, you can pretend that you've had consultations, and we can pretend that you've listened to the business community and the community at large, but the reality is that what you are fostering -- we are not making this up, Mr Speaker. We are not dreaming up the concerns.
The member for Cochrane North, I think it was -- I apologize if it wasn't -- one of the members over there said that his chamber wasn't particularly concerned. Maybe we should send a copy of that Hansard to the chamber to see how they react to that -- just an idea. Because, you see, we haven't fabricated this concern that's going on, and what you're doing is creating a polarization that goes back into pre-1900.
You are creating a level of mistrust, a level of fear, instead of taking the opportunity that the first labour government, if you want to call yourselves that -- the first socialist government in this province has a real opportunity. If you truly believe in justice, if you truly believe that amendments to the Labour Relations Act could improve the relationship between employers and employees, you have a tremendous opportunity to lead, a tremendous opportunity.
Instead, what you've done is you've drafted this bill and had everybody whipped into shape in caucus meeting after caucus meeting. Your minister sits there arrogantly laughing at the protestations of the opposition or at the serious objections of the community.
1730
You're missing your opportunity, I say to the Attorney General, a man whom I consider to be reasonable. You, sir, should be able to --
Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): Steve, you're losing it.
Mr Mahoney: Well, I've been in the corners with you on the ice. You're fairly reasonable. You should be able to put some sense into these people to recognize that they indeed have that opportunity.
One of the members opposite asked me what my dad would have said about this. I want to share some interesting quotes that are attributed to him, Dennis McDermott and a few other people. This is a document, Algoma Steel News In Brief. For those of you who don't know, my dad was the national director of the United Steelworkers of America from 1956 to 1977, I believe, so would be once removed from Leo Gerard. There was Gérard Docquier and before that Bill Mahoney.
He had some interesting comments to make. Here is the first one, from a political perspective, in this article, "I have never associated myself with either the CCF or the NDP from any kind of a doctrinaire, philosophical approach." He went on to say, "Sure, you want to build for the time you might take power and get around to the people who can discharge it with good common sense and in an effective way." You see, the terms "common sense," "effective way," "pragmatic," and "balanced approach" were the terms --
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): That's Liberalism.
Mr Mahoney: In a lot of ways it is Liberalism. That's exactly what it is.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: That's what happened to you.
Mr Mahoney: I'm proud to say I'm a Liberal; that's what happened to me. In fact, it became very clear to me, growing up in the atmosphere where the political debate would very often take place around the dining room table on Sunday evening, that there was a real necessity for labour and management to work together and not to get into the fights.
Mr Wood: It's working.
Mr Mahoney: You may be trying that, but my God, if you would just open your eyes and ears, you would see that it is not taking, it is not working.
Mr Wood: It is working.
Mr Mahoney: It is not working, sir. You are creating mistrust and fear in the community with Bill 40.
This is an interesting quote from Dennis McDermott. I'm sure you all remember him. He was Mr White's predecessor, if I'm not mistaken. He was the president, I believe, of the Canadian Labour Congress for some time, along with my dad who was a vice-president of the Canadian Labour Congress. Mr McDermott has said, according to this article, "His union and others are growing tired of paying the bills for the New Democratic Party, only to find it taking political stands that sometimes don't even agree with labour policy."
"We have no difficulty with the NDP, as long as they are not in power," said Bill Mahoney. God, I wish he was here. Maybe he'd whip a little common sense and intelligence into you people. He says, "I don't think any of us would ever hope for an NDP government or any other government to have a party outside of themselves" -- important -- "be it the trade union movement, the chamber of commerce, the CMA or whatever it may be."
Indeed, that is what we have. We have a government with a party outside that calls its policies. They can't make their decisions; they've got to go there. Then they find out they don't agree with it, so they do what they want anyway. We have a party outside the formal, elected body of this government in the persons of people like Bob White and Leo Gerard, who sit in the cabinet room with their feet up on the bloody table, telling the Minister of Labour what it is they need in return for their support.
Ms Harrington: Oh, awful.
Mr Mahoney: You know it's true. What you are doing, in cosying up, is destroying the very important history of the very important labour movement, Mrs Harrington. You are destroying its credibility; you are destroying its reputation. Not all the men and women who work on the shop floor at Algoma or at Dofasco or in Hamilton or anywhere are socialists. The reality is the vast majority of them are probably apolitical. Today they don't have the $5 or $10 to buy a card and they're not concerned about amendments to the Labour Relations Act. They're concerned about their jobs.
You stand there so proud about the accomplishments at Algoma Steel. I pray that the day does not come, through a lack of foresight by this government, when the new owners of Algoma Steel are going to be facing massive restructuring of their own. It may well come, and those new owners are not big investors, they're not entrepreneurs, they're not tycoons; they are the families of my home town.
If the day comes when they then have to either turn more of their rewards, their earnings, back in to save the company or they have to tell their neighbours or their brothers and sisters that they are going to be laid off work or they have to make hard business decisions, I hope --
Hon Mr Hampton: So we shouldn't let it through?
Mr Mahoney: No. I will tell you honestly, you had no choice. But what we have to start doing is fostering a relationship where the business community can survive.
I saw Leo Gerard's quote the day the deal was signed for Algoma. He said, "This is a great day for worker control." The last time I heard something like that I was at York University and it was from the writings of Chairman Mao. It is outrageous. If he could say, "It is a great day because we have saved Algoma Steel," that's one thing. "It is a great day because we have saved the jobs of the men and women who work at Algoma Steel," that's one thing. But for him to say, "This is a great day for worker control" frightens me. It frightens me because those men and women only want their jobs and their pay cheques and their pensions and their future and their kids to go to school and be safe. They don't want worker control.
Interjections.
Mr Mahoney: They don't. That's the problem right there in a nutshell. You people think they do.
Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): You know what people want.
Mr Mahoney: You're damn right, Minister. I sure do. I know better than you, let me tell you, because I've been in those plants.
Hon Mr Hampton: Check that water.
Mr Mahoney: It's not Mississauga water; it's straight.
The concern I tried to put forward is that the people who work in these situations are not looking to all of a sudden have all this control. At the end of the day, they have the same problems everyone else has. They have to put their kids through school, make their mortgage payments, pay their bills; their Visa cards are about to explode. They have all the same kinds of problems most people have. They are not hung up on ideology, like Bill Mahoney said. They're not tied to the New Democratic Party on some philosophical bent. They just want to survive. They'd like a holiday, two, three or four weeks a year.
Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): They want some say in the workplace.
Mr Mahoney: They have some say in their workplace.
What you are missing, in my respectful submission, Mr Speaker, is the fact that their workplace is in serious jeopardy. I don't know what we have to do to bang you over the head to make you understand that. There's nothing wrong with having a negotiated relationship and having the union sit down in a pragmatic way saying, "What is the best way we can secure the jobs for the men and women?" You have to make sure the company can still open its doors. If the company can't open its doors, who's going to work there? There's nothing wrong with an adversarial system.
1740
I'll just go back to another quote, where it says, "Where we each" -- being management and labour -- "have responsibilities, and, as adversaries, we bring out the logic, the economic facts, the industrial sense of how we view certain things that shall be done and should be done.
"What it really is is a system, the adversarial system, that fits the ideas, the welfare, the needs of the labour force and the ideas and the needs of the industrial operators. Together we hope to reach some kind of consensus of how, given those two positions, we can find a workable course of action."
There's nothing wrong with the fact that labour must represent it's constituency and in some cases there are adversarial situations. Adversarial is not necessarily negative. It forces people to sit down at the table and to put on the table the issues they disagree with and, with common sense and with reason and with pragmatism, to come up with a solution that, to quote from the article, is based on "a workable course of action." That's all people want.
I can only assume that, like everything else this government does, there's some kind of a hidden agenda. It may not even be so much hidden, because we all know this government is funded primarily from union dues, and we all know the amount of money paid in union dues represents hundreds of millions of dollars.
Hon Mr Hampton: It's not a factor, Steve.
Mr Mahoney: "It's not a factor," he says. We all know if they can expand their base and create more members who pay union dues, it will -- I think the Minister of the Environment the other day referred to one of her policies as the greening of the party. I think this is the greening of the party. I think that's what you're after, I really do, if you weren't so dogmatic about it, if you weren't so closed-minded about it.
Let me tell you a little bit about a company. Here I've got a letter from your minister responding to a constituent of mine, just to give you an idea of the impact. This is a fellow named Mr Kurz. He is the president of Precision Engineering and this is a Mississauga company. He asked the Treasurer in a letter:
"Our customer is located in Atlanta, Georgia, and before they issue a contract they have requested that we address three issues: (a) the new Ontario proposed labour law," and then they go into road blockage by trucks, which the Treasurer referred to the Minister of Transportation, and custom strikes, which he referred to the federal government, appropriately so.
But the very first question that this customer of a Mississauga company asked the Mississauga business person is, "Explain to me and help me formulate a satisfactory answer for the customer to enable us to get this business." They wanted to understand the serious impact of the proposed labour law.
The reality is that never before has this man, who has been doing business with American firms for many years, ever been called upon by one of his suppliers to actually explain some kind of a legislative piece of work and the impact it would have on the relationship. That, I just suggest to you, is scary.
In response, the minister says in a letter dated May 20:
"These proposals are designed to ensure that employees have access to the right to organize and bargain collectively." Do they not have that now? I ask my Labour critic. They have that now, the right to organize and bargain collectively. When do you think we're living? In 1900? Of course they have that right now.
"To foster cooperation in the workplace." Who's cooperating with whom? Maybe the leaders are cooperating; all the political people involved in the trade labour movement are cooperating with each other; you sure cannot try to pretend, Minister, that they are cooperating with management in this case.
"And to make the act responsive to current workplace realities." We haven't heard what they are, except to hear some members opposite stand up and go on and on about people dying and about workplace accidents and health and safety, which they know is not relevant to this issue. It is not relevant to this issue, and you know it.
There is no question that somebody in this place is out of touch, let me tell you that. Out of touch. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. If you'd listen to your community, you'd understand that they're mad about this, that they don't trust you. They don't trust you. They want a chance to throw you the hell out, and they'll get it too.
Then the minister goes on to say, "The government is committed to proceeding with the proposed reforms" -- listen to this. "The government is committed to proceeding with the proposed reforms in the very near future." This is the kind of consultation that you admit, in this letter in May, you're going to proceed with in the very near future.
He admits in this letter that they're going to proceed. I don't know why we're debating this. They've decided they're going to proceed. We've asked for committee hearings. They've decided they're going to proceed. There is no commitment to any kind of consultative process here. There is no opportunity for changes, none whatsoever. You're just taking your big, arrogant, 75-member government and you're ramming this down the throats of the opposition and ramming it down the throats of the entire province. It's really shameful.
Then the minister admits something I find even more remarkable that he would admit. I think I knew it, but I didn't know he would admit it and do so in writing. He goes on in this letter to say, "I am not of course in a position to advise you as to the effect of the proposed reforms on your business." I mean, we have a Minister of Labour actually admitting that he has no idea what the effects --
Interjection.
Mr Mahoney: You said it. It's your letter. I didn't make it up. You can laugh. He has no idea, Mr Speaker, what the "effect of the proposed reforms on your business" will be.
Hon Ms Gigantes: But you know of course. You know everything.
Mr Mahoney: Well, I think he probably does know and he knows it's going to put this business and many other businesses in serious jeopardy. With this bill, I'm concerned about the philosophy that's coming out from this government, about the inability to listen to the community.
The Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired.
Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, I want to close by telling you --
The Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired.
Mr Mahoney: -- that I'm the first speaker to be shut down on this 30-minute rule that this government has put in place. These people are absolutely --
The Deputy Speaker: No, no. Take your seat, please. Thank you. Questions or comments? The member for Oakville South.
Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I want to very quickly thank the member. I think one thing the other side doesn't appreciate is that there are people on this side who have come from a labour background, as the member indicated his background being. Mine is much similar. The other side might find this interesting, but I was a Teamster. I spent time unloading trucks as a Teamster, probably the most powerful union in North America. The people on the other side think, "They don't understand labour." I was a Teamster, just like the member for Mississauga West had somebody in the family who was very high in the ranks, and I was interested to hear that he spent time as the longest-serving member for Algoma. I think it was his uncle.
The other side seems to think it's the only side that has any members from the union. In fact it was a little bit different. Not only the Teamsters, which most of them would recognize because of the position of the Teamsters, probably the most powerful in all of North America, but in addition, during the time I played hockey, I was a member of the players' association in the American league. We considered ourselves a union as well, with all the rights and privileges. I guess that was for about seven years.
We had the same situation. When the other side gets up and says, "You don't understand the labour movement," we have people who were involved. I was the one who was out there slugging in the trucks, doing the work like all the other people have. I understand what it's like to be doing that.
I was also involved in dealing with it from the management side, because I also moved my way up. I was hoping I would have a longer time in this discussion, because I know my friend the member for Chatham-Kent and I have had many discussions on what needs to be done on both sides. Unfortunately with the time restrictions I'll only have a half-hour to get into it, but I wanted to get into some of the experiences I've had on both sides, as a member of the union and as a member of the management side. There are very few people in this Legislature who can say they were on both sides, people like the member for Mississauga West, and I think that's why he brings a different perspective.
1750
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I rise to comment on the member for Mississauga West and his selective use of history. He gives a couple of quotes from 1919. Of course he doesn't mention anything about the struggle for recognition of unions in terms of the Winnipeg general strike or some of the other things. He makes very selective use of his history.
He also talked about the issue of polarization between management and labour. I think one of the things to remember in this debate and to remember as we look at the development of organized labour in this country is that one of the reasons polarization has existed is that organized labour has had to fight tooth and nail for everything it has earned. There are still many people today -- I won't say all people in the business community, but still a significant number who somehow think there should not be a legitimate right for people to come together and collectively organize.
The real issue in this debate, if you listen to what some of the billboards say and some of the opposition groups say, is that we cannot be competitive and productive with organized labour, that somehow in a modern economy we're not going to be competitive if we have these changes.
I think it's important to look at history, particularly in the post-Second World War era and the result of some of our economic growth. A lot of it has to do with the fact that what gains have been made by union members in terms of wages and other benefits have created and directly benefited the economy, have directly benefited large business and small business. So I hope as this debate continues that we talk about the real issues and the question of fairness and how this legislation is not going to have an adverse effect on the economy.
The Deputy Speaker: I'd just like to advise the members on each side to please reserve your comments. It makes my job extremely difficult. I can't hear. I can't pay attention to what is being said.
Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): The interesting thing about this entire debate is the fact that when I look over at the NDP government I realize there are so many young people over there who have these views that labour is the answer to everything. There's no question that in any society there has to be a fair balance between labour and business. I think the thing the Minister of Labour fails to recognize is that you can't have unions unless you have jobs, and what you're doing by this labour legislation is creating an imbalance. The imbalance is going to put us at a greater economic disadvantage in terms of free trade and all the things you people try to blame it on, and in terms of how we continue to operate as a society in Ontario.
It's great to have idealistic attitudes that labour is the downtrodden. Labour's not the downtrodden. Look at Quebec, look at the United States. They manage to operate in a fashion where labour and business are able to maintain this fine balance. That's precisely what we have to do, but the bill that's being introduced by the Minister of Labour -- of course the machiavellian rules that limit us in terms of debate do not give us an opportunity to let the public know what's going on.
It's also interesting that in a debate of this importance there is not one single member of the press here. They've taken their cameras and gone away. They've gotten out of the press gallery. They're not interested in reporting on the issue of this balance, and if there's anything we need more in this country today in terms of maintaining the integrity of the province as well as the country it's the question of balance; balance constitutionally but, more important, in terms of providing that economic climate where there is a balance between labour and industry to help maintain our society.
Mr Turnbull: I found it very interesting to listen to the member for Mississauga West, because indeed he grew up within the family listening to all the questions that concerned not just union leaders but workers. Our party has consistently said that we're concerned about workers -- because that's what this is all about -- and the ability of workers to maintain their jobs. That's why our concern has constantly been expressed along the lines that there have been no impact studies. The minister is prepared to ignore this very important question of having impact studies done because he has a job to do. His job is to deliver to the union bosses this bill to help them to unionize, because they are in retreat.
This is a government that has just spent $160,000 to give a contract to one of the old union bosses, one of his old pals, to do a study which the Ministry of Transportation said wasn't necessary and had substantially already been done. This is an untendered, unrequired contract. They'll spend $160,000 to educate their union pals, but they won't spend money to find out how many jobs are going to be lost.
Indeed it's strange that the minister sits here and laughs about this. He should be crying, because he's destroying this province with his attitudes.
You will spend money on union songs. This is a government that has put $40,000 or $50,000 of government money into developing a new union song, but it won't spend a penny to find out how many jobs are going to be lost by this stupid legislation. They want to put their head in the sands and pay off their union friends.
The Deputy Speaker: Thank you, your time has expired. The member for Mississauga West, you have two minutes to reply.
Mr Mahoney: Johnny Barker was a well-known labour leader in the Steelworkers organization, and he had a saying I have quoted often that I find rather appropriate. He used to say, with some regularity when talking about social programs and changes in society, "Don't let your bleeding heart run away with your bloody head." I thought it was kind of appropriate. It was somewhat a colloquial way of putting it, but it really makes a lot of sense.
Mr Bradley: I think Dennis McDermott said that.
Mr Mahoney: Well, McDermott stole it from Barker if he said it, because it was John Barker's many, many, many years ago, back in the days when the Steelworkers union was actually being formed.
There are a lot of tremendous people I've known in the labour movement over the years, people like Larry Sefton and Don Montgomery and Ivan Campbell, a lot of tremendous people who were dedicated, hardworking, absolutely committed to improvements for the workers, and in reality they delivered.
Mr Hope: A lot of blood, sweat and tears.
Mr Mahoney: That's right, a lot of blood, sweat and tears. I agree with that. They delivered a lot of reforms that were important.
But they all did another thing as well. They understood that you had to make these changes, whether in programs directly in labour legislation or in other social programs, in a way in which the community at large can accept them and absorb them and understand them and work with them for the benefit of workers and for the benefit of management, which ultimately is for the benefit of the entire community. That is exactly how labour leaders in past years have operated, whether it goes back to Joe Morris -- you can name hundreds of them.
That's not what you're doing. You're creating a terrible atmosphere between labour and management in the province of Ontario.
I move to adjourn the debate, Mr Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 33, the question that this House do now adjourn is deemed to have been made.
LABOUR LEGISLATION
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Oakville South has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Labour concerning impact studies on job losses. The member for Oakville South, you will have five minutes to make your presentation and the minister will also have five minutes to reply.
Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I won't need the full five minutes.
The reason I was dissatisfied is that I think the people of this province need to have an answer. We've asked on many occasions about doing impact studies and this minister hasn't been very clear on why not, why there weren't going to be any impact studies. We've asked day after day.
If the minister will look back, this legislation, as we all know, has become very important. Literally every day our party has asked a question on it or had a statement on it or brought it to the attention of the minister. The minister, having spent some time going around during discussions, will know it has become one of the biggest factors of discussion among all groups in the province of Ontario. Yesterday that poll that came out indicated a high proportion of the people who are aware of this issue as being very critical.
I want to ask one simple question to the minister and then he can have five minutes to give the answer. My question is this, Mr Minister: Have you done any impact studies -- I'll repeat it -- have you done any impact studies, and if you have not done any, why not? Simple question. I believe the people of the province need that answer.
Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The proposed reforms that we brought forward focus on giving employees the right to organize and engage in meaningful collective bargaining where they wish to do so. The proposals are not anticipated to have a significant impact on union density, and even if they do, a growing body of evidence suggests that the presence of unions does not inhibit --
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The minister has the floor.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: -- but rather enhances workplace productivity, and this is a belief that I share.
Professor Noah Meltz of the University of Toronto has noted in a paper prepared for the Ministry of Labour:
"In order to undertake various economic impact studies, a number of heroic assumptions would have to be made. These assumptions relate to the process of estimating the net economic impact of a possibly greater but difficult to determine extent of unionization and the economic impact of the changes on already unionized establishments and benefits.
"But at the same time it can create pressure of higher productivity and more innovative work organization.
"In short, while wage costs may increase, cost savings may also result, facilitated by lower turnover, greater employee participation and a collective voice in the workplace."
If I can, in addition, just briefly, an internal assessment --
Interjections.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: They obviously don't want the rest of the answer, Mr Speaker. I'm finished.
The Deputy Speaker: It being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow afternoon.
The House adjourned at 1803.