Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LANDLORD-TENANT COOPERATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I wish to bring to the attention of the members of this House a matter that goes to the very heart of our keen interest in promoting good relations between landlords and tenants in Ontario.

On May 29, 1992, the rent review services office in Ottawa issued an order that was delivered to 108 apartments in a building owned by a respected Ottawa landlord, Minto Developments. The order specified that the rents being charged for 16 units in the building were unlawful. Ministry of Housing officials later admitted that they believed the 16 rents were unlawful because in each case they exceeded the maximum allowable rent by one cent.

Minto, with 25,000 tenants, is Ottawa-Carleton's largest landlord. I'm certain we all recognize that good landlord-tenant relations are something we must constantly attempt to promote in the public interest. We will recognize as well that there are surely enough impediments before landlords and tenants in their sincere efforts to create and maintain good relations between themselves without the Ministry of Housing throwing a wrench into the works.

In an effort to restore good relations with its tenants, Minto has requested that the ministry issue a letter of apology to the tenants and Minto. Ministry of Housing officials stubbornly refuse to issue that apology and matters have now escalated, unfortunately, to the point where a lawsuit is threatened.

The Minister of Housing must now exercise her legitimate authority to defuse this matter by requiring that an apology be made by her officials. She must also inquire into the reasons why such an order was ever issued and decide whether she believes her officials should be prosecuting landlords for the sake of one penny. Surely her officials have many more pressing matters to pursue than this.

I feel certain that the minister will want to pursue this matter responsibly as part of her continuing efforts to promote good relations between tenants and landlords in Ontario.

ORANGE HERITAGE HOMECOMING PARADE

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): This Saturday I will be pleased to take part in the Orange Heritage Homecoming Parade in Wiarton. This parade will celebrate Canada's 125th birthday as well as the 125th anniversary of the writing of the song The Maple Leaf Forever, also of the Wolseley Loyal Orange Lodge 1231, and the centennial of the Wiarton District High School.

Because the lodge has long helped disabled children, the parade will be led by the Hackett Thunder Band of London. These young people will not only march for disabled kids but also include youngsters who are physically challenged. Because of its heritage theme, the parade will feature floats depicting eras in the lodge's history with people dressed in period costume and riding in horse-drawn buggies, carriages and antique cars.

Over the years, the Orange Lodge has made a huge contribution to the community. In my riding, its members helped to build the Grey-Bruce Regional Health Centre and several local arenas, and most recently they've sponsored a minor league softball team in Owen Sound. They have long assisted needy families, ensuring that there was always food on the table and presents for the children under the Christmas tree.

The Orange Lodge has been an invaluable service organization since before Confederation. It sent thousands of members to fight for Canada's freedom in both world wars and produced several premiers, Speakers of the House and lieutenant governors.

I would like to commend Dave Dailey, present deputy grand master of Ontario west and chairman of the parade committee, for his hard work. I wish him every success both this week and in the future and I thank him for his efforts on behalf of everyone in Grey and Bruce.

PROPOSED HIGHWAY

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): During the election, I ran on the basis that arbitrary powers of government and politicians should not be unchecked. I had the example of P1 as a bad model of interference. During the campaign, I stated my support for processes that maximized the involvement of the entire community. I did so because I believe the environment is of primary importance and that environmental, not political, criteria should be used in determining the location of what could be environmentally damaging new infrastructures. Otherwise, politicians win cheap political points and the community and the environment lose important environmental resources.

The criteria used to determine the Highways 401-407 link have followed a process. The environmental assessment has identified 88 criteria and has weighted these criteria. These criteria go way beyond "ease and economy." They clearly looked at environmental impacts. Over 20 different configurations were evaluated and graded. There have been public open houses to hear the concerns of the community. A decision on the technically preferred route was based on these criteria and public comments. Nothing was done behind closed doors.

The technically preferred route, in the judgement of the engineers and the planners and based on the criteria, must be accepted as the link when and if it is built. This of course is after further dialogue with the community at large, and of course politicians should be heard. However, their voices should not be heard with any greater volume than anyone else in the community. To allow political interference is indefensible and a waste of taxpayers' money.

If, after a fair and equitable process, the link ends up in my riding, I and the community must accept that. No one should be forced to accept, however, decisions based on politics and not on important environmental grounds.

1340

CHILD SAFETY

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who is responsible for consumer protection and safety, should be aware that the Canadian Standards Association has established safety standards for playground equipment. These standards are expensive for manufacturers to implement but vital to protect children. Unfortunately, they're permissive rather than mandatory.

I question whether the minister agrees that it is important that these standards be enforced and maintained. If the minister were truly concerned about the safety of children, she wouldn't allow Ontario's municipalities, school boards and other government agencies to purchase playground equipment which does not meet the standards of the Canadian Standards Association.

Metropolitan Toronto, for example, recently awarded a large contract for playground equipment to a foreign manufacturer which didn't meet these standards, but on demand, when it was discovered they didn't meet them, the manufacturer subsequently did meet the Canadian standards.

I do not think it's responsible to award contracts to Ontario companies simply because they employ Ontario workers, but when our companies and our workers lose contracts to foreign manufacturers who don't comply with legitimate standards for safety, I get very concerned indeed.

I believe the minister must inform this House that she too is concerned and that she is prepared to defend Ontario jobs and children by instructing all government agencies to purchase playground equipment that meets the safety standards.

FUEL SUBSTITUTION

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): Three consecutive Energy ministers in this government have promised that Ontario Hydro will be more responsive to public concerns. The province of Ontario has been told that Bill 118 will make Ontario Hydro more open and accountable. Business will be done through the front door instead of the back door. Recent statements by the acting Minister of Energy on tendering practices do not bear this out.

I certainly hope the present fiasco surrounding the introduction of fuel switching programs is not also indicative of the new direction Ontario Hydro is taking. The acting Minister of Energy on two occasions has stated in this House that negotiations are proceeding with the gas industry on the substitution issue and that quick passage of Bill 118 was mandatory for the success of the program. However, the minister has failed to include some key players, mainly the municipal utilities and the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario, in these important discussions.

Many commissions are completely in the dark over Hydro's plans for fuel substitution programs, and I urge the acting Minister of Energy to clear the air immediately and issue some type of statement regarding the status of discussions. The stakes are too high for this attitude of secrecy to continue.

The city of London has an excellent program using load shifting that increases revenue without requiring new generation. Immediate consultation is necessary. I urge the acting minister to table the fuel-switching legislation for debate in this House.

NIAGARA-ON-THE-LAKE BICENTENNIAL

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I rise today because I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of those who participated in this past weekend's bicentennial events in Niagara-on-the-Lake.

About 5,000 spectators took a trip back in time to witness the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake transformed into the 18th-century town of Newark, the first capital of Upper Canada. Hundreds of town residents and other re-enactors dressed in period costume milled about the town, lending to the atmosphere of a bygone era.

The highlight of the bicentennial celebrations was the arrival of Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe, played by Neil Rumble from the Niagara-on-the-Lake Chamber of Commerce, by tall ship from Toronto. With cannons booming, the Lieutenant Governor re-enacted his arrival on the shores of Niagara some 200 years ago.

Much of the credit for the success of this event must go to Mr Jim Alexander of Niagara-on-the-Lake and his committee, who volunteered countless hours of their time over the last three years to organize this unique celebration.

I'm sure this bicentennial week will in itself become another page in the history of the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake. After participating in this bicentennial celebration, I can only say that for many of us our regret is that we won't be around for the 300th anniversary in the year 2092.

Mr Hansen joined us with his family and I know other members did as well, and I know they all had a rousing good time.

LANDFILL SITES

Mr Charles Beer (York North): Yesterday over 1,000 York region residents made their way to Queen's Park to protest this government's decision to force the region to be the new dump site for Metro's garbage.

I have with me today over 1,000 coupons that residents have signed and clipped out of the Newmarket Era, the Aurora Banner and other regional papers to once again show their disapproval of the dump. Included in this envelope are the coupons and many letters, which I will be delivering to the minister.

Amid the placard-waving and vocal demonstrations yesterday were cries for new ideas, for new options and yes, Minister, for you to sit down and talk to the residents and listen to their concerns.

Madam Minister, it is truly ironic that you would be prepared to introduce today into this Legislature an environmental bill of rights while at the same time creating a megadump in York region. Where are the rights of the citizens of York region? Bill 143 is an arbitrary and dictatorial piece of legislation which runs completely counter to any concept of environmental rights. What will an environmental bill of rights do to protect York region from having a megadump the size of 80 SkyDomes? Clearly there must be a better way.

Surely the unilateral decision of this minister through Bill 143 to impose a megadump on York region is neither environmentally right nor progressive. Surely the outhouse technology of a megadump cannot be acceptable to this minister or this government. York region residents have joined forces to fight for their rights on this issue, and the battle has just begun.

DAY CARE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): On January 1 of this year, the NDP Minister of Community and Social Services announced that new fee subsidies would be available for public sector day care programs only, unless a municipality is able to show that non-profit child care is unavailable.

Although the NDP government says it is conducting a consultation on private day care before taking any action, on June 10 an NDP child care advisory committee issued a document outlining conversion procedures for private day care. Then, on June 22, municipalities received a directive from the NDP social services ministry ordering that all new purchases of child care service agreements are now to be in the non-profit sector alone. It also stated that where there are no non-profit centres, ministerial approval will now be required for the negotiation of service agreements with private sector centres. So much for NDP consultation.

This latest move by the Rae government is another example of NDP discrimination against women as employers and as child care workers in private day care. It is a blatant form of shameless blackmail, forcing them to sign conversion agreements without any hope of ever obtaining any compensation whatsoever. The NDP is wasting taxpayers' money, feigning consultation and arbitrarily imposing its will on municipalities, which pay 20% of the day care bill.

I doubt this is legal. After all, the province is telling municipalities that they cannot enter service agreements with the only sector which pays municipal taxes. The one great irony is that the NDP minister responsible for women's issues is the chief architect of this illegal and gender-racist NDP policy against women in the private day care sector whose only crime is their love for and commitment to children in Ontario.

VISITORS FROM GERMANY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): It is with great pleasure that I welcome to our Legislature today a special group of visitors who have come to us from Germany. Members will notice our guests seated in the public gallery.

This group of 33 men and women is travelling in Canada on behalf of the Social Democratic Party of Germany. They have a genuine political interest in Canada and are travelling on their own time to learn about our politics, economy and culture. An admirably full schedule has been arranged, consisting of meetings with a variety of officials on topics ranging from free trade to social issues, along with other activities. The goal of the group is to get to know Canada from the inside.

Such interest in our country is indeed gratifying, but I think all members will agree that there is as much we can learn from these guests as they will learn from us. On behalf of all members, I thank them for taking the time to share their experiences and their culture with Canadians and for doing so with enthusiasm.

As chair of the NDP government caucus, I want to say what a special pleasure and privilege it is for our caucus to welcome these representatives of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, a party with which we New Democrats share much in the way of philosophy and objectives. It is reassuring to have such kindred spirits in this House.

On behalf of all members, I would like to say "Willkommen" to these special guests. We appreciate their interest in Canada, in our province and in our Legislature. We extend our sincere best wishes to them for an informative and pleasant journey.

1350

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ENVIRONMENTAL BILL OF RIGHTS

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): I take pride in announcing to the House today that we've succeeded in creating a unique piece of legislation, the Ontario environmental bill of rights, a bill which gives citizens far greater power to protect the environment than they've ever had before, yet at the same time is fair to business and industry.

Last October, I appointed a task force, made up of key business and environmental organizations, and charged it with developing draft legislation. The task force did what the critics said could never be done: It drafted a bill reflecting a consensus of business and environmental groups. With this unanimous agreement, we are moving forward with the support of both communities.

Ever since I first took my seat in this Legislature, I have had the conviction that when governments fail to meet their obligation to safeguard the environment citizens should be able to hold them accountable.

The task force successfully transformed my vision of citizens' rights into reality. The members took the principles we gave them -- the right to a healthy environment, improved access to courts, increased public participation, government accountability and whistle-blower protection -- and crafted a made-in-Ontario bill that flows from our experience and meets the needs of this province. For the first time, Ontario citizens will have a guaranteed right to a healthy environment.

The environmental bill of rights will create a win-win situation for everyone. It will open up the government's environmental decision-making process to much greater public scrutiny. This will give business a uniform and predictable process for obtaining environmental approvals, while giving citizens an opportunity to influence decisions at an earlier stage.

To give the public the information it needs for meaningful participation, the task force recommends an accessible registry that will give people advance notice of significant environmental decisions to be made, information on how to participate and notice of final decisions.

The bill also gives people the ability to hold the government accountable. People will be entitled to ask for a review of government policies and programs when they see problems or to initiate an investigation where they see environmental damage being done.

If citizens had had these rights in the past, their vigilance might have prevented environmental disasters like the Hagersville tire fire or PCB contamination at Smithville.

We anticipate that if people are given greater input into environmental decisions, then better decisions will be made and the courts need only be used as a last resort.

The proposed bill provides enhanced access to courts by the creation of a new civil cause of action and by the removal of standing as a barrier in public nuisance actions.

A citizen will be able to use the new civil cause of action where environmental laws are being or are about to be broken and where the government has not adequately responded to a request for an investigation. In such cases, citizens can go to court to apply for an injunction or to ask that a restoration plan be negotiated.

Workers also have a significant role to play in defending the environment. When they know of illegal activity, they should be able to report it without losing their jobs or their paycheques. The proposed bill extends existing protections under the Environmental Protection Act to a longer list of acts, as well as guaranteeing that workers can exercise their new rights under the environmental bill of rights without fear of reprisals.

However, this bill will be effective only if government lives up to its obligations. To oversee this, the task force recommends appointing an environmental commissioner. This independent commissioner would ensure that all government ministries are held accountable for their environmental policies and actions.

I want to thank the members of the task force, who are with us today. The co-chairs are Michael Cochrane, formerly with the Ministry of the Attorney General and now in private practice, and my deputy minister, Richard Dicerni. I'd also like to recognize the contribution of Gary Posen, my previous deputy minister, who served as co-chair between October 1991 and May 1992.

The other members of the task force are Bob Anderson of the Business Council on National Issues; George Howse of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, and his sometime substitute, Norm Stewart; Rick Lindgren from the Canadian Environmental Law Association; John Macnamara of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce; Paul Muldoon from Pollution Probe; Andrew Roman, a lawyer specializing in administrative and environmental law, and Sally Marin from the Ministry of the Environment. I'd also like to acknowledge the work of Steve Shrybman of Cabinet Office.

Members of the task force are in the gallery. I'd like them to stand so that they can be recognized, if they wouldn't mind. I congratulate these individuals for creating a fair and balanced bill. They have all devoted hundreds of hours discussing the principles of the bill and consulting with their constituencies. They've proved that if people are brought together in a cooperative spirit, with a clear mandate, they can develop solutions which have integrity and meet the needs of everyone involved.

I know the people of Ontario share the vision reflected in the environmental bill of rights I am releasing today. Over the course of this summer, I hope to increase their understanding of the bill and gather their comments and suggestions. I look forward to introducing the bill for first reading as soon as possible.

For too long, the public has remained on the outside looking in. They have been denied their right to a say in decisions which dramatically affect their lives. The environmental bill of rights will open doors that were previously closed to them. We are bringing Ontario closer to true environmental democracy.

RESPONSES

ENVIRONMENTAL BILL OF RIGHTS

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I think it's important to note at the outset that this announcement of the environmental bill of rights in many respects is really a non-announcement inasmuch as the minister has already written her story and had it written in the press yesterday. Her announcement comes as absolutely no surprise after seeing the reports on the CBC last night, after reading today's papers and after her press conference earlier today. It makes you wonder at the outset if she really respects the traditions of this House and if it's a portent of things to come in terms of her environmental democracy and how it's going to work in the future.

Having said that, I want to point out that the top environmental priority of the New Democratic Party has today seen the light of day in draft form. Although the document in many respects bears the same title, the environmental bill of rights, on examination the draft document bears little resemblance to the previously proposed bill of rights, including the soon-to-be-implemented Bills 9, 13 and 12, tabled by the critic, as she was then. I think you will notice there are some major departures from the bill of rights that many people contemplated.

It begs the question fundamentally, apart from the substance of the report we have here and the bill of rights as proposed by Mrs Grier when she was critic, who is the real Ruth Grier? What does she really stand for? What if anything beyond expediency in terms of government does she really believe?

How much real remedial action and empowerment will this environmental bill of rights give to people when juxtaposed and compared to what she said previously? Will it assist the 1,000 people who stood on the front steps of the Legislature yesterday and the countless tens of thousands of other people in and around the greater Toronto area who vehemently oppose Bill 143 and the implications it will have on their natural environment, their farms and their homes? What will it do for them? What empowerment does it give people in real circumstances, in a real situation, when the minister has said, "I will dictate my policy, because I happen to believe my policy is supreme in these matters"? That is exactly what happened with Bill 143.

I have to wonder, in terms of all the lipservice being paid to the environmental bill of rights, when it comes down to the crunch, Minister, will you give it the same importance that you gave the environmental assessment process, when you delivered on the so-called promises you made to the people at Keele Valley and Britannia? Is this the same kind of thing we're going to see here, a commitment to a process, but when it comes down to the nitty-gritty and reality, you will say, "I will dictate what will happen"? That's precisely what you've done with Bill 143.

I don't think it's any coincidence that you held up the environmental bill of rights, had your process in place and got Bill 143 out of the way. Those were your words, to get it out of the way before the environmental bill of rights came along. It's clear that this document is contrary in almost every respect to the principles underlined in Bill 143.

Will it help those who wonder what you are doing in terms of your lack of initiative and leadership in other areas, Minister, and your failure to commit on other promises? It seems to me the brave new world of pre-election rhetoric you promised in so many areas has to be questioned. Where are you going to go and how will this help deliver?

Does the environmental bill of rights allow people to challenge the policy of the minister? Does it allow the people of the province to say to you, Madam Minister, that they disagree with you fundamentally and want to have their input? I come back again to reality, not the rhetoric and not the ideals but the reality of the way you've been governing in terms of environment and what's happening with people all around the greater Toronto area, and the sense of their involvement and empowerment.

1400

How about the municipalities that have been totally shut out in terms of your waste management process? That's how they feel about it. Is this going to be of any comfort to them? Will it provide them with anything?

How would you respond to a commissioner what you're contemplating when you won't respond to people in the province and you won't respond to municipalities? I dare say in many respects you don't respond to people in your own caucus on some issues that are of considerable importance. I don't think the relationship between Bill 143 and the draft bill of rights is clearly coincidental.

In conclusion, I want to say that the clearest example of the level of commitment that your government has had towards working cooperatively with business, labour and special interest groups is best illustrated by the complete abandonment of the principles and goals of the Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy.

As you laud this and tout this today, I want to draw people back to reality in terms of what you've done as minister, what commitments you have fulfilled and where you've come. This was the number one priority for you; it was the number one thing you were going to do and it doesn't bear much resemblance at all to what you said you were going to do.

It leaves the question: Who is the real Ruth Grier? Is it statement number one, statement number two or statement number three? How many more Ruth Griers are we going to see? Will the real Ruth Grier please stand up?

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): In responding to the environmental bill of rights, first of all I'd like to challenge the fact that the minister has built up great expectations by calling these proposals, these documents an environmental bill of rights. When one thinks of an environmental bill of rights, one thinks of something that's enshrined, like our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, something that is very substantial and that enshrines those very things no one can ever take away from us. What I'm seeing happen here is that the Minister of the Environment is building expectations on this document as being something far greater and far bigger than it really is when you get down to it. I question the fact that by starting off and calling it this you have given people an expectation that is not really fair.

I'm pleased that business and environment have gotten together and tried to put a document together, to work it through, but I am also very pleased you're giving more time for other people from the development industry and other areas to hopefully have an involvement in developing a document that can work. I really believe that if we are going to be progressive, we've got to make sure we continue to listen and work with all areas, unlike the Ministry of Labour, which has closed off business and management from consideration on its labour bill. If we're able to continue to have dialogue in a balanced way with different groups on this bill, we might be able to come off with something that works.

I look forward to seeing who your appointment of an environmental commissioner might be. Fortunately, Jack Layton already has a job and Dale Martin has a job and Richard Johnston has a job and enough of the other New Democrats, but let's just hope it's not another place for you to place one of your New Democratic friends.

I also raise the question of how user-friendly this will be. If there's anything I would hope to see in government, it is that there'll be an opportunity for people to get into government and find out what's going on, so that when someone has a concern -- how they can protect their family better, how they can protect Lake Ontario, how we can protect our natural habitat -- is this bill going to help them do so?

One of the concerns we have is the time it's going to take to install all these systems and go through it. When you appointed this last committee, I said, "Take your time; don't rush it." Don't feel you have to rush it now, because I think there are things that need to be done. But if there are parts of that process, if it can be done correctly and well and it can begin to have an immediate impact to protect those areas in York, Durham and Peel that have significant problems with you and your ministry, then let's do that.

I haven't seen any cost analysis. This government never comes through and says how much something is going to cost until after the Treasurer comes in and says it's going to be a deficit. Let's have a look and maybe you can, in one of your future press conferences, tell us just what it is going to cost for the registry system and the whole support mechanism around this bill.

Can you give us some assurance as well that this environmental bill of rights, as you call it, will not go back to Bill 12? You and the Liberals came forward with a bill of rights that really was full of lawsuits. You were going to sue polluters. Individuals and groups could sue almost at random. I would hope that as you take further time in the review of this bill, you're not going to revert to some of the very distorted thinking that people saw in your Bill 12.

I would also be worried because again we have expectations built up on what government is doing, and if this becomes anything like the Ontario Human Rights Commission, we're in a position where when you set up your new organization, if you have a backlog and the problems we've seen with other ministries and secretariats that are established, we begin to wonder just how much it is serving the people or anyone.

I guess what I really look at as well is the impact this bill is going to have as we start looking at the Sewell commission report, as it comes in, and as we start looking at the whole question of environmental assessment. If we want to build new affordable housing, and we're looking for ways of doing it, is this system going to slow up that process or is it going to speed it up? What is the net impact on the overall development of growth within this province, in a planned, realistic way?

I would want to make sure that there's nothing being done through this bill that's going to further get in the way of legitimate, good and fine progress. We're in a province where we have to work together. I have sensed that there's been some movement within your ministry to do that. I just wish you could be consistent on that with the other bills and the other things that are going on and may it continue as we continue the dialogue, and seeing that we can improve your efforts in this regard.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Premier.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I had a meeting earlier today with the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Conservative Party and I wonder if I could have the unanimous consent of the House to make a statement, which I'll try to keep as brief as possible. I apologize in advance to the House for not having a written text for my statement. It's just that time has not permitted that, since I got in very late last night. Is that agreeable?

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM / RÉFORME CONSTITUTIONNELLE

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I appreciate the chance to speak to the House today. I want to begin by saying that the member for Carleton and the member for York North were with me for part of the proceedings, but neither of them was there for the last several hours of the discussions yesterday. I don't know whether that was a deliberate decision on their part or whether it was a --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): That's where things fell apart.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): They propped you up as long as they had strength.

Hon Mr Rae: They had other things to do. I want to say to the members that I appreciated their advice. I listened carefully to it. I did not always follow it. I want them both to know that I continue to appreciate their advice. The member for Willowdale has also been very active. A number of members have been active and I appreciated their participation. I certainly don't think their participation means that they're in any way, shape or form obliged to do anything other than to be good and loyal critics of Her Majesty's government.

Let me say that late last night at the end of the premiers' meeting, we agreed on the elements of a basic package for constitutional reform. I want to remind the House of what the basic elements of this package are and I want to say some things about where we now are, as I see it, in the discussions, since the agreements were reached with nine premiers, nine governments, and with the federal government being represented by Mr Clark.

First of all we have the commitment to a Canada clause, which will be an interpretative clause, which will speak clearly of the basic constitutional features of the country's life, including its commitment to democracy and to parliamentary and federal government, and to aboriginal rights, to Quebec's distinct society, to racial equality and to the principles of gender equality. I think we can see in the Canada clause and its interpretative effect, a clear commitment of the country to some very basic rights for Canada, very basic rights for Canadians.

We have, in my judgement, reached the most successful effort at reconciliation with the aboriginal peoples that the constitutional process has ever produced in the history of the country. We not only have the commitment to the inherent right to self-government; we have an agreement by the aboriginal leadership that any judicial consideration of that will be delayed for five years, and we have a commitment to create a negotiation process with respect to self-government as well as land claims.

1410

There's an enormous amount of work that's been done already. The minister responsible for native affairs was at my side throughout these discussions. I could not have done the work without him. I think his participation, his credibility and his links and ties with the aboriginal leadership across the country proved of enormous assistance to us. I want to thank him publicly for the efforts he's made.

There is a strong and clear commitment to a social charter and to the economic union. There's a commitment to a reduction of interprovincial trade barriers which has some important protections for basic provincial programs which are already in place and which are an important feature of economic and social life across the country. But the commitment to a reduction in trade barriers that are arbitrary and discriminatory between and among the Canadian provinces is, I think, a significant achievement, one we're certainly very comfortable with and feel quite strongly about.

We also have a commitment to the social charter, which was an idea this government was extremely committed to. Other governments were less enthusiastic, but we've managed to make significant progress in bringing that alongside. The Beaudoin-Dobbie proposals helped very much in that effort. We now, I think, have a clearer commitment to those programs.

I want to remind the House that in the very first speech I gave as Premier, I made a clear linkage between our ability to strengthen the social and economic union in other ways and our willingness to respond to the demands that were coming from a number of different parts of the country with respect to the allocation of powers.

I said at that time that the allocation of powers was not a theological issue for this government any more than it should be for any government. For example, I've discussed the question of training with the member for York North, the former Minister of Community and Social Services, who knows from his own experience the extent to which we have to work better in coordinating our training programs through the ministries we have here and through the federal government.

Someone has said, for example, that this means unemployment insurance will now be dismantled. I want to stress that nothing could be further from the truth. The federal government's responsibility for unemployment insurance is maintained and affirmed. Their constitutional and political responsibility for that is very clear, and the responsibility of the provinces for a greater participation in labour market training and labour market development is also confirmed. I think that's an important development.

We have a number of other areas where, again, the role of the provinces, as we know full well from this jurisdiction, has always been important in terms of tourism and recreation and forestry and housing and mining. The role of the provinces and their relationship to natural resources and other issues have always been extremely clear. We're trying to provide more effective and efficient government. This, again, is an issue that should join Canadians together. We still see a very critical and vital role for our national government, for our federal government in terms of our national institutions. In my view, nothing we have agreed to will diminish that role or take away from that role, but we have allowed for provinces to play an effective role in the management of these issues, which I think is going to prove to be important in terms of programs as well.

I want to stress that I don't think the public of Canada is preoccupied particularly with which level of government performs a particular role. I think they're more concerned to see that the governments which can do it best do it, that it's done in the most efficient and fair way possible and that we eliminate as much duplication and people falling over themselves as we possibly can. I emphasize, for example, on behalf of our province, that the issue of training and manpower was a concern of ours as a province when we first initiated these discussions several months ago.

It was a condition of Quebec, in terms of coming to the table and returning to the constitutional dialogue and the constitutional family, that the basic gains it felt it had won at Meech and in the Meech formula should be reaffirmed or affirmed. I think we can say clearly and emphatically to the government and the people of Quebec that they have made enormous gains. Their gains are made not at the expense of anyone else, but in a spirit of real generosity and a real determination to work together. I would say very directly to Mr Bourassa publicly, as I've said to him privately, "It is time now for Quebec to return to the negotiating table."

Je veux dire tout simplement qu'on a toujours agi, comme Ontariens et comme gouvernement de l'Ontario, dans un esprit de bonne foi et dans un esprit de vouloir faire tout ce qui était possible pour le rang canadien. Nous avons insisté à ce que ce soit un rang canadien, mais que le Québec soit directement inclu dans le rang canadien et que les gains et les avantages, les choses que le Québec a voulues et que l'on a vues au lac Meech, soient encore inclus dans le nouveau document et soient encore inclus dans la réforme de la constitution que nous sommes en train de faire.

Je crois que je peux dire avec confiance que, à mon avis, après toutes les discussions, le Québec a maintenant la possibilité de retourner directement à la table de négociations, à la table de réconciliation, à la table de discussions, à la table canadienne, à la table du Canada, pour que, enfin, nous réglions toutes ces questions avec une finalité importante pour tous les Québécois, tous les Ontariens et tous les Canadiens.

C'est dans l'intérêt de nous tous, Québécois, Ontariens et Canadiens, que nous complétions ce travail, que ce travail soit fait, que les choses soient réglées et que nous puissions retourner au boulot important, qui est de retourner les Canadiens au travail et de retourner notre pays à la prospérité que le Canada mérite si fortement.

I want to close by saying that of course to achieve these gains and to achieve what we felt was important, we have also listened. I want to say to all members, members of my own party and members of the opposition parties, that it became clear to me as these negotiations proceeded over the last several months that one of the most important symbols of the federation in the minds of many Canadians living in many different parts of the country was this question of Senate reform, a Senate reform that in their view had to include the principle of equality between the provinces.

I think everyone here knows I have never been a particular enthusiast or advocate of a so-called triple E Senate in its pure form. In fact, I think it's fair to say that there was more than one occasion on which I said that it was not something which I saw as being a possibility in terms of the next round, this round, of constitutional reform. We put forward other models. We put forward the equitable model. We worked with other governments in trying to achieve support for that.

As the discussion proceeded, it became clear to me that this symbol of equality was really quite vital, but that the question of the powers of the Senate and the effectiveness -- the so-called third E, if you like -- was something which really could be negotiated and could be discussed, something on which there was a willingness to be flexible and to discuss. So over the period of time -- at one point, for example, I suggested that we get rid of the Senate and that we add on a number of elected members to the House of Commons who would be elected on an equal basis across the country.

That idea wasn't accepted. But from an earlier discussion, the principle of joint sitting between the House and the Senate in which differences between the House and the Senate would be resolved -- and I'll come to some of the details in just a moment -- provided I think a critical sort of common ground that was able to be worked on yesterday and that has produced the proposal which governments will now have to consider.

1420

I want to say to the members of the House and to the citizens of this province, people ask me, "What have you gained and what's happened?" What have we gained? We've gained a reformed Senate. We've gained a reformed Parliament. We've gained, I think, a sense in all parts of the country that the country can be made to work fairly. I think we've succeeded in protecting the principle that the government elected in the House of Commons has to be able to carry forward with its program and have the confidence that its program will be achieved and will succeed.

We have gained the important principle, which I insisted on and the minister insisted on as an important parallel to the principle of equality in the Senate if you're going to have equality in the Senate with the joint sittings, which in a sense creates a new dynamic -- the principle of the House of Commons must clearly be that every province is going to be represented according to its population. I can tell you that principle has been recognized.

I say to the House that when we look at all the elements of this package, the Canada clause, the gains that we have achieved -- I think historic gains, and for our government, I can tell you, it's something to which I have personally attached enormous importance -- with the aboriginal leadership of the country, the achievement of the social charter and the stronger working of the economic union, the clarification of the powers of the different levels of government, the achievement of the essence of what it is that Quebec was seeking in the Meech Lake accord in terms of allowing Quebec to come back to the negotiating table with its head held high not in isolation but as part of the Canadian constitutional family, and finally, a reformed Senate, which will allow all those Canadians who look to their federal government as a place where they can be represented and considered and who see a spirit of reconciliation at work in the land, I look at this overall proposal and I see a profound basis for constitutional reform and I see a profound basis upon which we can get on with the other critical issues facing the country.

I want to conclude by saying many people have asked me: "Is this like a final deal? Is this the seamless web? Is this all there is? Is there a change now?" I'll tell you what this is. This is the basis on which, in my view, Quebec can now return to the table and on which there can be and continue to be a clear basis and a very profound basis for constitutional reform. I think there will be an opportunity for all Canadians to reflect and to look at and to consider in a mood of wanting to find a solution what has been done and to consider what improvements can be made, what other things and what adjustments can be made.

I want to stress that there was no final initialling of anything by premiers which means that we have a seamless web and we have the problem we had with Meech, and then going to Langevin and everybody saying, "That's it, there's nothing more." I want to stress to members of the House that we are, in my view, approaching the time when we are going to have to make some important decisions as to what we can and cannot accept as a province, but I want to stress to everyone that the compromises we have reached as Canadians are compromises that can work. They are compromises in which no region has succeeded in winning its victory at the expense of anyone else.

We cannot see these negotiations as ones in which one part of the country says, "Well, if I step on someone else's neck, I will win," because if anyone has that vision or that view of how constitutional negotiations have to take place, I would simply say to them, "Not at all," because we have to live with each other for the future, we have to see this as a situation in which we will all win and in which, yes, there will be compromise but it will be a compromise based on a keen sense of interest and, above all, a keen sense of our profoundest interest of all, which is to keep the country whole and to make it work better.

I know there will be comments. I know there will be criticisms. I know there will be those who say that too much has been left out. I know there will be those who say, "You should not have done this" or "You should not have done that." But I want to say to everyone in this House that it is the basis, I believe, upon which we can achieve the national reconciliation, which includes everyone, which we have been seeking as a country for a very, very long time, and I urge and hope that all members will do their best in a constructive and positive way to keep the momentum going for the national agreement, for the national reconciliation we all so dearly seek.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I think we'd all agree that each step in this process of negotiating a new Constitution is a significant one, and at each step I've wanted to be able to respond for my few moments as a leader of our party, certainly as an Ontarian, but also as a Canadian who shares a commitment to the unity and to the future of this nation.

I can't say often enough or take advantage frequently enough of the opportunities I have to say how proud I am of a nation that is built on the principles of respect and of tolerance, a nation that continues to find its strength in its diversity. I believe that is our heritage as a nation and it is also our unique achievement.

We've seen in recent years and now in recent weeks the constant effort that is required to keep the process of nation-building alive and well, and had I been in the Premier's place at the negotiating table over the last days, I know that I would have wanted to reach an agreement, that I would certainly have wanted a basis for inviting Quebec back to the table, and I sincerely hope that is what has been achieved. J'espère que ce sera en effet le résultat de ces négociations. I believe Ontarians want an agreement that will work, and an agreement that ultimately will keep this country together.

But I was not at the table, and while I can and I do appreciate the efforts that were made there, I cannot really gauge, I say in all sincerity to the Premier, what those negotiations were like. We cannot yet have a real sense of what has been a positive response to needs, what is indeed compromise, what reservations there might still be legitimately about the compromises that have been made. We cannot yet know in truth what has been gained and what might have been lost. None of us has yet had an opportunity to see the full text of what's been agreed to, nor has there been an opportunity, I think the Premier would agree, for anyone in this province or in any other province, even for those who were at that negotiating table, to analyse the impact of the proposals that are to be put forward.

So what is needed now is time for analysis, time for careful consideration and reflection. The people of this province, as well as the members of this House, will want to hear more about what this agreement will mean, and we will want to hear from Ontarians. This kind of time for consideration, away from the pressures of the negotiating table, will be needed in every province.

Our only response today can be to say that we look forward to participating in the next steps. We do so recognizing that much work has been done, but there is still much work to be done.

1430

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words. I want to say again how much I appreciate the Premier involving my party and our representatives and representatives of the Liberal Party in the discussions, more so than was the case previously. I just reiterate that and say that there are some areas where we have very strong agreement with the Premier in this package, in the discussions and the positions advanced by Ontario.

Certainly there is one area on which I think all Ontarians and I'm sure all members of this House agree: We want a deal, we want to get this Constitution behind us and we want to be able to move forward. Having said that, everybody then says, "However, we want the best deal, and what is the best deal, best for Ontario, best for Canada?" and that's where the debate is. Clearly the message from my constituents and those I've talked to in Ontario is, "Work it out and let's get on with other issues that are important to us."

Having said all of those to be construed as, I hope, very kind things -- and I hope what I'm also going to say is not construed as unkind -- the Premier will know I've had some reservations about some of the positions that Ontario has taken and how we've been represented at these discussions. The lack of a referendum has placed the Premier and the people of Ontario in a very weak position, in my view.

I know the Premier has expressed concern, particularly with Quebec not there, over the triple E Senate, over being virtually alone from time to time because Quebec was not there as the other province most concerned about central Canada maintaining some control over itself. Had the Premier said from the outset that the people of Ontario, like Albertans, British Columbians, Quebeckers and Newfoundlanders, because it is in their Constitution, will ultimately have a say by way of a referendum, he would never have needed to feel alone.

Premier Getty was never alone at the table. He had each and every Albertan with him every step of the way in advancing his positions, because he had made it very clear that he was there representing Albertans -- indeed Canada's interest as well but representing Albertans -- and that Albertans would have the final say, so when it came to issues like Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland having a veto over a substantial part of how Canada operates and when it comes to issues of the Senate, indeed Don Getty was there very confident, as were other premiers, that he would never be alone. They had people power with them, and you, Premier, were there alone, (a) because Quebec was not there on some of the issues and (b) because you had not invited people power in Ontario to be with you, the people power of the referendum.

I mention that again because I think it's important that as you go to the next round -- and I think you've indicated this has got us to the next round, and that's the good news and we're very supportive and encouraged by that -- there's still an opportunity to take the people power of nine million Ontarians to that table with you, and I would encourage you to do that.

I've been concerned about what appears to have been an almost blind determination for native self-government as the most important thing for Ontario. As you know, I was most critical of the tradeoffs of Meech. I don't like coming to a constitutional agreement by horse-trading Senate versus native rights versus veto versus other things. I think each of these are so important they should stand on their own.

I hope the native self-government that you have advanced, championed and brought forward is indeed in the best interests of natives and of Canadians. I really am concerned, though, that you've not had the same success -- I think you've had the determination -- in helping us define what it means. I suggest we are really into an area of very blindly moving forward, and I fear from talking with some of the natives in the two bands in my riding that they clearly have an expectation of what native self-government means well beyond what any government can possibly be prepared for. They now have expectations that are going to be totally unfulfilled. It just has been the be-all and the end-all. If they have self-government, they'll be healthy, wealthy, wise and prosperous for the rest of their lives. It's been like fairyland almost. That's what happens when we don't define what we're doing a little better.

You will know as well that I'm most concerned that -- and you mentioned interprovincial trade barriers, Premier, but you have not in fact championed dropping interprovincial trade barriers, as I would have had I been at the table. Section 121 deals with dropping the interprovincial barriers. While you've reported some progress, Premier, you have not championed that cause completely. I am distressed by that. I believe it would have served Ontario's interest and Canada's interest to get on with a phasing-in timetable of the elimination of 100% of all the interprovincial trade barriers within this country, most important for us to be able to compete and enter the global economy with some confidence and be able to have the jobs we want in Canada. I hope that if this is back on the table in the next round, you will bear that in mind.

Finally, the last disappointment was that you have not championed property rights, as I believe the majority of Ontarians --

Hon Mr Rae: Nobody did.

Mr Harris: No, nobody did. That's right. The Premier says that nobody championed them. What an opportunity for you, as Premier of the province of Ontario, to have championed them. I guess I'm stating my disappointments. Were I Premier of the province, I would have championed them. I'm telling you that and encouraging you to continue with that, because I think that lack of property rights and the substantial weakening in the new constitutional document over the old British North America Act is in fact a barrier to investment, to entrepreneurship, to jobs, to prosperity, to our province.

Those are the reservations that I still think there's time to talk about and that I want to put on the record. Having said all that, the Premier has said he believes that this is a deal to bring Quebec to the table. I want to say to my Premier, to Bob Rae, I want to say to Joe Clark, I want to say to the other premiers that I agree with them. I believe this is a basis to bring Quebec to the table. I want to say congratulations, because getting to that stage where Quebec would feel comfortable that Canada had not rejected it seemed very elusive.

I want to emphasize that I will do everything in my power and anything that I can add to encourage Quebec to recognize that what it had asked for in Meech and what it had asked for beyond Meech is contained in the spirit of this agreement. I don't believe this a final deal. I think Quebec will have some concerns over the Senate, and perhaps the veto, but I believe this can bring Quebec to the table. I congratulate all those involved in getting it to this stage.

Finally, Premier, I ask that as you go forth to that next stage you reflect on allowing the people of this province to have the final say. I have a great deal of confidence in the generosity of the people of this province, of Ontarians wanting to be part of Canada. I have great confidence that they are able to understand these issues far better than we give them credit for.

I believe, Premier, that if you will make that commitment today, ultimately the people of this province will have an opportunity by way of referendum to vote yes for Canada, just as other provinces will have that opportunity, you will be able to go forward, never alone, but with true 10 million people power into those discussions that will ensue. I ask the Premier to pat himself on the back for being part of a historic agreement to get us to the stage where Quebec can come to the table, but I ask him -- as he knows, there is much left to be done yet -- to consider the referendum before he goes forward.

1440

ORAL QUESTIONS

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Minister of Labour. On Monday I asked the Minister of Labour why he consistently refuses to refer his labour relations bill to the Premier's special labour-management advisory committee. The minister indicated on Monday in his responses that in fact the Premier's committee was set up with both labour and management people "to be able to provide advice to the government...in terms of how we improve and better labour relations in this province," and that's a direct quote from the minister. Yet he refuses to send this significant piece of labour legislation to that very same committee.

I say to the minister very directly that 78% of Ontarians believe this government must do a proper analysis of the impact of this legislation on jobs. The Premier has set up a business-labour joint committee equipped to do exactly that. Will the minister tell me again, in the presence of the Premier who established this committee, why he is not prepared to let this joint labour-management committee do the impact studies of his legislation that the people of this province are saying are needed?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): Mr Speaker, I'd like to refer that question to the Premier of the province.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm happy to answer the question and say to the honourable member that I established the committee. I had hoped it would be able to meet yesterday but other things took over yesterday. It will be meeting very soon. Of course it will deal with the legislation. It can discuss the legislation, it can discuss a number of issues. This is an important part of the discussion, but I don't think there should be any misunderstanding either in the business community or in the labour community or in this House as to the determination of this government to proceed with this legislation.

Mrs McLeod: I'm delighted to be able to then place the question again to the Premier. The Premier, I'm sure, has been following the responses of his minister when we have asked this question in the past and he will be aware that the Minister of Labour has repeatedly said he does not believe there is any need to do studies of the impact of this legislation on jobs. He does not believe jobs will be lost, therefore no studies are needed.

The Premier will understand that we're a little bit sceptical about accepting the minister's belief in exchange for real job impact studies. The Premier will surely be aware of the poll results that were released this week in which more than two thirds of Ontarians, who included union members, who included NDP supporters, are convinced this bill will indeed cost jobs. They have a reason to be concerned if they look at the only study that has been done, which suggests that about 295,000 jobs could indeed be lost in the province, and yet the Premier's own minister dismisses this, refuses to carry out any impact studies and continues to march ahead with his own beliefs.

If the minister refuses to accept the numbers, surely the Premier can. Surely the Premier will understand that the people of this province are not supportive of this legislation, they believe it will cost jobs and they simply don't think the government has done its homework. Will the Premier, understanding that, agree that this significant piece of legislation should be referred to the labour-management committee he's established to improve labour-management relations and ensure that committee carries out proper job impact studies?

Hon Mr Rae: Only a Liberal would think some survey or a poll represents a study. There are going to be all kinds of polls, they're going to go up and down, on all kinds of subjects. We've seen that. I've certainly experienced it in my 15 years in public life.

The honourable member says the minister has indicated he's not interested in conducting any studies, I can tell her that's quite untrue. This government is interested in working with everyone to see that we have the strongest and most positive climate for labour relations anywhere in North America. That's what we're determined to do.

We don't think we do that by denying basic rights to working people, to working women and working men, in this province. We don't advance the cause by denying basic rights to people and we don't make progress by putting our heads in the sand and pretending the labour force hasn't changed in the last 50 years. We're determined to make changes. The committee can certainly deal with the issue but we're not going to use the establishment of the committee as an excuse to delay the legislation, which is what the Liberal Party wants to do.

Mrs McLeod: So the Premier, having asked to respond to a question which I was not proposing to ask him in the first place, still refuses to answer the question. The question was, are you prepared to do job impact studies on your legislation? Are you prepared to have those studies done by the joint committee which you yourself established?

Talk about putting your head in the sand. I thought it was just the Minister of Labour who had the blinders on and was refusing to listen or to hear any of the concerns that are being expressed by the people of this province, but clearly the Premier has the blinders on as well and this entire government is refusing to care -- not just about studies. These are people in Ontario who say they are worried about this bill. The more people who know about it, the more concerned they are. They are saying to this government, "Do your homework; at least be prepared to do the studies that are needed." Yet this government does not care about those concerns, it doesn't seem to care about the job loss that may occur as a result of this legislation.

I would just ask the Premier, what is his minister and what is his government so afraid of? What are they afraid of in having the joint committee do some objective studies of the potential job loss of their legislation? What does this government think it's going to lose by doing what Ontarians clearly want the government to do?

Hon Mr Rae: We certainly know what the Liberal Party is afraid of. It's afraid of progress, it's afraid of dealing with an issue that's been there for a long time and it's afraid of dealing with the reality that there are scores, indeed hundreds, of workers who've been left without any ability to organize themselves effectively. We're trying to deal with those issues and deal with that problem.

I want to say directly to the member that there's no reason at all why this committee can't consider exactly this legislation as well as others, but I will say to her that as to the so-called scientific studies she's referred to, the first study carried out by the Council of Ontario Construction Associations, which has been carrying on this billboard campaign which the honourable member is simply reflecting, said that 495,000 jobs would be lost, and then they carried out another survey and told us, "Well, maybe it'll be 280,000 jobs that will be lost."

I want the honourable member to know that we're happy to have this legislation discussed in the House. The discussion paper has been out there; it's been out for a year. We've had the most extensive consultation process involved with any legislation. I can understand why the Liberal Party would be so hostile to the legislation, but let that not be an excuse for this Legislature failing to act in an area in which it so clearly needs to act.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs McLeod: The question was such a simple and such a direct one: If you don't trust anybody else's studies, why not do your own? What have you got to lose?

ENVIRONMENTAL BILL OF RIGHTS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): In utter frustration at being able to get an answer on that line of questioning, I want to ask a question of the Minister of the Environment, and if the minister chooses to refer to the Premier, that would be another interesting switch for the day.

I direct this question to the Minister of the Environment because she has just released a draft environmental bill of rights for public review, although I understand it is not the bill itself she is presenting but the proposal for it. I want to ask the minister quite simply how she can reconcile this environmental bill of rights, with all its rhetoric, with the sweeping, unilateral and absolutely unprecedented powers she gave herself with Bill 143. I would ask the minister if it is not true, in fact, that if she had brought in the environmental bill of rights when she originally had promised it, she would never have been able to introduce Bill 143.

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): Let me start by trying to explain to the Leader of the Opposition what Bill 143 contains. Bill 143 contains policy of this government put in legislation that has been widely debated in hearings across this province, debated in this Legislature, voted on in this Legislature and passed. That was not dictatorial, draconian and unilateral. It is policies that have been much discussed, policies for waste reduction, policies for a site search, policies that enshrine the environmental assessment process as being the way in which that site search will be constructed, and policies that clearly put in place in law the fact that incineration and transportation to northern Ontario are not policies this government wishes to see addressed in the search for landfills.

The process by which that legislation was arrived at, the possibilities for public access to that debate and the opportunities for public consultation and public participation in the decisions that flow from that legislation are entirely consistent with the citizens rights that are enshrined in the draft environmental bill of rights I released today.

1450

Mrs McLeod: I would suggest that the minister might want to make her explanation to the people whose lives have been completely disrupted by Bill 143. They were the people this minister heard from yesterday, and they were very clearly saying that the emergency powers this minister has given herself have taken away their rights. The people who were demonstrating here yesterday feel they have lost their voice, they feel powerless, they feel completely shut out of the process and they feel they can no longer trust this minister or this government.

While the demonstration was going on here at Queen's Park yesterday, I was meeting with people in the Durham region. People in Durham region are feeling the same sense of being shut out of the process, and they are extremely concerned about a level of civil disobedience that may result from a decision they feel this government has already made, even though the minister tries to distance herself from it.

I would ask this minister to say very directly to those people: How does this environmental bill of rights she proposes to bring in reassure the people who have had to live with this landfill chaos she has created? How does this bill of rights give these people a voice?

Hon Mrs Grier: First of all, the landfill chaos the member refers to has been around for I think the last decade. There have been various attempts to deal with that chaos and that crisis, none of which has been effective.

Certainly the concerns expressed by the people in York, the people in Durham and the people in Peel who find that in fact a landfill might appropriately be located in their community are exactly similar to the concerns that were expressed to the previous government by the people of Whitevale, by the people of Brampton, by the people of Plympton, by the people of Marmora and Campbellford, by the people of lots of places in this province that were the designated potential recipients of greater Toronto area garbage.

What this government's policies have done is ensure that the people of the greater Toronto area will look after the waste that is created in this area and that the way in which the decision is made as to what the most appropriate landfill site should be is an open and a fair way and ultimately by an Environmental Assessment Board. That was not the privilege that was afforded to the people of Whitevale or the people of Brampton by the environmental rights enshrined by the previous government.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): It is very clear that were George Orwell still alive, the terms "doublethink" and "doublespeak," two and two equals five, would be alive. Let's be very clear: An environmental bill of rights cannot stand side by side with Bill 143. It is impossible. It is as if you go to someone who is going to be hanged and say, "We're going to allow you to participate in selecting among 57 different sites, but at the end of the day, let's be very clear what's going to happen."

The people of York region are saying that whatever your process -- and you people are consumed by process; you forget that the end result is to be this wonderful megadump in York region. What the people want to know is how on earth their rights in York region, the rights of the individuals living there, are protected in any way, shape or form by this so-called environmental bill of rights when you have directly, by legislation, imposed a megadump in York region.

Minister, do you not see the hypocrisy between those two acts, and will you not now agree that the only course left is to withdraw Bill 143 and to find a new approach and a new idea and a new alternative?

Hon Mrs Grier: No. The simple answer is no. Bill 143 is policy that has been enshrined in legislation, and at the end of the day, the government -- whichever government -- makes public policy and is accountable for that public policy.

There are landfill searches going on in over 100 municipalities around this province, waste management planning processes that will end up with a hearing before an Environmental Assessment Board. None of those other processes is considering incineration, none of those other processes is considering transportation to northern Ontario, yet they are consistent with the Environmental Assessment Act.

In the greater Toronto area, three landfill searches are being undertaken. They are not considering incineration. They are not considering transportation to northern Ontario. They are as fair and as open as a site selection process has ever been, and they will be tested, they will be challenged, they will be argued before the Environmental Assessment Board to make sure that the best possible site is selected in the fairest and most open way. That is entirely consistent with giving the people of the greater Toronto area environmental rights.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question, third party.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. The draft paper you've submitted today, calling it an environmental bill of rights, has created expectations in people who will look to it as a document that can make a difference in their lives and for the environment.

A bill of rights, when you think of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is something that enshrines fundamental rights that Canadians know are theirs, that has made a difference. People go to the courts and it means a great deal to them.

What we have today is this ministry coming forward with a document that is creating those expectations, yet when you get to the very meat of what the difference is going to be, you have to ask what difference this will make for the people in York, Durham and Peel who are fighting your government and the Interim Waste Authority with regard to Bill 143. So I ask you this: How do you foresee the environmental bill of rights benefiting people in York, Durham and Peel who are fighting the Interim Waste Authority and your ministry?

Hon Mrs Grier: The process that's being followed in the search for a landfill site for the greater Toronto area is entirely consistent with the principles of allowing people to play a role in making those decisions, in participating in the selection of criteria, in having the tools, such as intervenor and participatory funding, to play a meaningful role before hearing boards.

The environmental bill of rights was not designed -- in fact, the task force deliberately tried to avoid creating yet another level of bureaucracy and approval processes through which every application for a certificate of approval or an approval process had to go. What it did was enshrine, and will enshrine, the rights of people to have the same kinds of access to information and to participation that they are being given in the site search in the greater Toronto area and that they now have, through parts of the Environmental Assessment Act, that they do not have in other pieces of legislation that come under the jurisdiction of my and other ministries.

Mr Cousens: I've listened so carefully to try to find out how the environmental bill of rights is going to help the people in York, Durham and Peel, and I'm not hearing an answer coming forth from this minister. Because I'm looking for something that, if it's an environmental bill of rights -- it really isn't. It doesn't change anything we've had heretofore with regard to the way you've brought in Bill 143, the violation of the rights of these people -- I mean, their property can be expropriated; they've lost their rights under the Municipal Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, and the regional municipality of Durham, York and Peel acts.

There's not a lot that's new in this bill. It's not a solution to the violation of these rights. In fact, we already have a situation in York region where someone is going to the Supreme Court under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because his rights have been violated by your Bill 143.

If you can be more specific, I really would appreciate it and so would the people who are watching for something that's good and new and beneficial in your environmental bill of rights. How do you foresee the environmental bill of rights benefiting the people of York, Durham and Peel who are so concerned about all the violations that have come out of Bill 143? Please tell us how it's going to help them.

Hon Mrs Grier: I wish the member would be a little more careful in his sweeping statements about violations of rights. I ask him to read Bill 143. I ask him to compare Bill 143 with the Municipal Act and with the Environmental Assessment Act and I ask him to perhaps consider carefully the kind of statements he makes, which are very often quite inaccurate.

No piece of legislation in the world would make the people of Peel, Durham, Metropolitan Toronto or York pleased with the fact that there is going to be a landfill site within the greater Toronto area. What I can assure them is that as we seek the best possible site within that area to dispose of the waste that they and we all create, and as we move to put in place a system that will try to reduce that waste as much as possible, the regulations that will require that reduction and the procedures that will lead to that final decision will give them every right to participate, to play a meaningful role, to argue, to challenge and to make sure that those decisions are made consistent with the principles of the environmental bill of rights and with the most open and fair process that anybody has gone through to find a landfill site.

1500

Mr Cousens: On the one hand, the Minister of the Environment says she wants to uphold individual rights. On the other hand, this minister in Bill 143 has trampled those rights, absolutely trampled them. She says, "Go and read it." I've read the thing and I know that it has taken away the rights of people under the Municipal Act and other acts. You in fact, with the selection of landfill sites, remove all previous rights and give those special rights now to your government, through the Interim Waste Authority, to do what you want, when you want, where you want, how you want, without any concern about the rights of an individual. So the ideological irony that I'm living with is, how on the one hand can you support individual rights and on the other hand trample them in Bill 143? How can you justify this massive inconsistency?

Hon Mrs Grier: Well, I would have to accept that I was trampling on rights and that there was a massive inconsistency before I could justify a massive inconsistency. As I don't accept the premise of the member's question, I can't answer it in the way that would make him happy.

The Speaker: It's now time for the second question. The leader of the third party.

ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): To the Minister of Health: Last week I asked you to intervene in the case of Marilyn McCleary. She's a Barrie woman who is trapped in Texas, unable to pay her medical bills and unable to come home because there's no facility in Ontario to treat her illness. She was promised 75% OHIP coverage for her bills, she went to Texas on that basis and they were paid until December on that basis, and then the promise was revoked. You've had several days to reflect on Marilyn's desperate situation. I would ask you again, Minister: What action have you taken to ensure that Marilyn McCleary can come home?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I'm not sure I understand the last part of the member's question. I think he asked what steps we've taken to ensure that the individual could come home, and I think in fact he's asking us to continue to support treatment outside of the country. Perhaps I could ask him to clarify that in a supplementary.

In general, in terms of what steps I've taken since the leader of the third party raised the issue, I certainly have indicated that I find this a very difficult disease to deal with when, particularly in Ontario, it is not a recognized disease among the medical profession, so it leaves us in a difficult situation. However, I have been trying to bring together people who are doing work and research on this to get the best advice with respect to the development and the state of knowledge of environmental hypersensitivity at this point in time and what steps can be taken. I hope to follow up on that by bringing together a group, including consumers, to talk about specific initiatives that may be helpful to Marilyn and to others who are suffering from this particular set of immune deficiencies and environmental sensitivities.

Mr Harris: I appreciate that something is going to have to be done for the long term. You talk about lack of evidence: There are books out on the subject, I've got numerous reports here by various ministries, and the minister will know that I raised the Thomson report, which I believe back in 1985 or 1986 recommended that a facility be built in Ontario. Six or seven years later, nothing has happened on that.

But your answer today does nothing for Marilyn McCleary. She weighed 90 pounds when she flew to Texas. She broke 15 bones on the flight down because of the frailty of her body. She then reached 125 pounds after treatment in Texas. Minister, I'm not asking you to go through all the research, I'm not asking you to intervene with the medical arguments for or against what should be proposed in Ontario. I am asking you to intervene for Marilyn McCleary. It is obvious that she was dying in Ontario without any treatment, just as it must be obvious that she is progressing with the treatment in Texas.

We paid for 100% of this treatment before, then you made a deal for 75%, and now that she is getting better, you have pulled the rug out from under her and said, "No, the user fee won't be 25% any more, it'll be 75%." That has left her with two choices: come home and die, or bankruptcy.

I would ask you again, Minister, while you're trying to come up with a long-term or final solution for others, would you not agree that this is a case in which you should intervene personally and make sure that today Marilyn McCleary is not faced with that choice of dying or bankruptcy?

Hon Ms Lankin: The member will know that I have to be very careful in talking about the specifics of the case. I should make it clear to members that there are treatments available here in Ontario and many Ontario citizens who have a range of diagnoses from doctors that relate to environmental sensitivities are receiving treatment here.

Since the Thomson report of 1985, there has been continued research and there is developing opinion on this. In fact, that developing opinion contradicts some of the recommendations that were made in that report in 1985.

What I would like to be able to do is to move on bringing people together on this issue and determine a course of action, that where there is agreement of medically accepted practices to try to treat people and develop a program that will be helpful to people, including the individual the leader of the third party raises the case situation about.

I am certainly not without compassion in the individual case and I understand the plea he is making. I will attempt to do what I can within the framework of the structure of the system we have for delivering health treatment resources to people based on the best scientific evidence and knowledge we have about available and effective treatment.

Mr Harris: Health and Welfare Canada's 1990 conference on the issue concluded this: "Environmental sensitivities need to be considered on a case-by-case basis, with compassion for the individual being the central tenet of treatment." This was a 1990 study which concluded that no mumbo-jumbo, no collection of doctors, no slot will exist for every person who is faced with what has been called the 20th-century disease in common terminology. It recognized that and it suggested this approach for ministers of health, I would suggest, or those responsible for administering OHIP: It should be "on a case-by-case basis, with compassion for the individual being the central tenet of treatment."

Minister, would you not agree with me that in Marilyn McCleary's case, we should begin with compassion for the individual being and consider this as one case by itself; remove this fear of death or bankruptcy from Marilyn McCleary, which surely was not intended by any architect or any implementer of any OHIP plan anywhere in Canada; deal with that first today, and then carry forward with examination and study of what else we should be providing in Canada? Would you not agree that that is what should be done today, as was recommended by the 1990 conference on the issue by Health and Welfare Canada?

Hon Ms Lankin: I think the member makes a useful distinction in how these issues should be approached. I do agree with him that the general approaches with respect to what we do in the future around treatments and examination of the system should be left as part of the longer term and isn't an immediate answer for the individual case that he brings forward.

I think that each case -- I agree with him -- should be dealt with on a compassionate basis and on a case-by-case basis, and I indicate to him my commitment to do that in this case and in each case that comes along. I also hope he will understand that we will have to make the final decisions with respect to that in terms of what knowledge and information there is available to us, but I do undertake to him to approach this and other cases of this nature in that compassionate, case-by-case way.

1510

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is for the person who has taken away my rights and the rights of the opposition to deal appropriately with legislation and matters of public policy in the House. My question is to the Premier.

I have a question about the contrast of the Bob Rae and the NDP of principle and the Bob Rae and the NDP of power. Mr Premier, back in the days when you would defend the legitimate democratic role of the opposition, back in the days when your party and you would not accept corporate donations, back in the days when you frowned upon political patronage, back in the days when you were opposed to Sunday shopping and opposed to the use of the OPP to investigate members of the opposition, back in those days you were opposed to the use of government polls. In other words, you were opposed to the government of Ontario ruling by those political polls paid for from the public purse.

Premier, now that the levers of power are within your grasp and you have an opportunity to put your former principles into practice, will you stop using taxpayers' dollars to hire political pollsters to tell you what you think about the major issues of the day?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): My father wrote a book with George Gallup called The Pulse of Democracy, so I don't think we should disdain the capacity of people to find out how the public feels about a number of issues.

It's my understanding, and certainly this is the advice I've received, that this government uses polls somewhat less than the former cabinet did and somewhat less than former ministers did. I think the evidence will also show that we can hardly be accused of relying on them, or if we did, we certainly haven't relied on them as effectively as other governments have done in the past.

We were accused by his colleague today -- it just shows you the Liberal inconsistency. The Liberal leader was up on her feet saying, "Why don't you do what this poll tells you to do?" I was making it very clear that I found that information interesting but that I don't regard it as determining government policy. His leader is saying, "Use the polls and let that do it," and you're saying, "Don't take any polls." Why don't you make up your minds over there?

Mr Bradley: The Premier is fully aware that the issue we're discussing today is the taxpayers of the province of Ontario paying for polls for your government. If your party wants to take them or someone else wants to take them, that's an issue you can deal with.

Premier, your political handlers and spin doctors portrayed you as a leader with different political ethics, portrayed you as a new kind of leader who would abandon those practices of which you were so critical in the past. In view of this portrayal, the 37% of the voters who supported you in the last election in anticipation that you would adhere to those principles likely believed that you would not spend their hard-earned tax dollars on political polls and then keep the results of the polls to yourself until they're outdated.

With essential services being cut back by your government -- the leader of the third party mentioned this just now -- because of lack of money, and with political cynicism at an all-time high, will the Premier admit he is wrong to continue this opportunistic, manipulative practice and will he announce to the House that he will abandon his political polling operations at taxpayers' expense?

Hon Mr Rae: I can only say to the member that from time to time ministries and so on do market surveys, that kind of information. That's a perfectly legitimate thing. I would say to the honourable member that I've known him long enough, seen him in opposition and seen him in government, to say to him that I will always give him, in his questions, the benefit of the doubt, and I will ignore the personal and somewhat venomous character of some of his characterizations of this government and what we're trying to do. I know him too well and I've known him too long to be affected by that.

LABOUR RELATIONS

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My question is to the Minister of Labour. The minister has repeatedly stated that Bill 40, an act to strengthen unions and expand union membership, is designed to promote greater cooperation in the workplace between labour and management. I have a document published by the Canadian Auto Workers, entitled the CAW Statement on the Reorganization of Work. In the foreword to this document Bob White writes, and I'm paraphrasing, "Many times, the goals of unions conflict with employer interests, and we in the union movement do not accept the inference that we are part of management's team."

How does the minister reconcile this negative attitude of Bob White, who says unions should not and cannot cooperate with management, with his own repeated assertion that strengthening unions through Bill 40 will lead to greater management-labour cooperation?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The comment he refers to, indicating that labour can't be part of management's team, is that it's not necessarily being part of management's team. I think the idea of more cooperation and less confrontation is a very valid one and I would suggest to him it's a role that's being played by the very union he has referred to.

Mr Arnott: The minister's response and assurances are not very reassuring to me. The small business community is saying that Bill 40, instead of bringing greater harmony and cooperation in the workplace, is dividing labour and management in polar extremes, dividing them as never before in Ontario. We have Bob White, president of the Canadian Labour Congress and vice-president of the national NDP, the supreme commander of the labour forces in Canada, saying that unions should not cooperate with management. How can the minister continue to assert that Bill 40 is intended to promote greater labour-management cooperation, a statement that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business is calling the big lie?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think it's unfortunate that kind of language is used. I think the best answer to the member across the way is to simply look at the actions taken by the very union he's referred to in the General Motors case, for example, where they have tried to work out a more cooperative approach.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): My question is to the Minister of Colleges and Universities. The minister knows I have Brock University in my riding, and as a result of having that post-secondary institution in my riding, I am concerned about an article that appeared in the Globe and Mail this morning, where it suggests that the ministry has cut capital funding to our province's post-secondary institutions. I know that any perception, any hint of that kind of cut, would be very dangerous at this time. We are trying to focus on training and education as vital components of our economic recovery. So I really need from you, Mr Minister, a reassurance for Brock and Niagara College and the other post-secondary institutions in this province that no cuts have been made to their base capital funding.

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Colleges and Universities): I thank the member for the question because I too read the story in the Globe this morning. The point has been made in the House in exactly the same confusion of figures. The base capital funding for the Ministry of Colleges and Universities for the system last year was $100 million. The regular capital funding for this year is $100 million. There has been no change in the ongoing capital funding.

The source of confusion has been that last year, you'll remember, we provided an anti-recession funding package for capital expenditure, and we at that time allocated $89 million for the college and university system. That provided, in-year, far more capital funding for the colleges and universities than recent past governments have even approximated. But now for them to confuse that figure with the regular ongoing capital funding is quite mistaken. That confusion is a big error and should not be perpetuated.

1520

Ms Haeck: I had the privilege, on behalf of the minister, of making an announcement in my riding, on the Jobs Ontario Capital fund, of $2.5 million for Brock University. I would like to know, is that money going to be considered part of their regular base capital grant?

Hon Mr Allen: That is also a question many institutions have asked me as we've made those announcements in recent weeks. I just want to assure the member that the Jobs Ontario Capital is over and above the regular $100 million of capital which we will be announcing very shortly in terms of specific projects. That money, which will be $63 million flowed over the next two years, will be additional capital money for the colleges and universities of Ontario.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): This question follows very naturally on the previous question. My question is to the Premier, and it is about the whole issue of waste, and it's waste in your office, Premier, in the office of the cabinet. It has to do with the question that was just asked.

Premier, you are probably aware that the people of the province learned yesterday, much to their anger, that it is your Cabinet Office's intention to go out and hire a brand-new advertising agency, spend money with it to pay for advertising, and this is your responsibility, Premier, in your Cabinet Office. It's around the specific issue that was just talked about.

What's really making people angry, Premier, is that you're going to spend money on this advertising agency at the very time as you are doing exactly what we said yesterday. You look at the capital program: last year, $3.9 billion spent on capital; this year, $3.9 billion spent on capital -- exactly the same money. But what's happened? They've cut out $500 million and put it into a pork barrel, an NDP pork barrel. So we can see exactly as the Minister of Colleges and Universities said. Last year he spent $199 million on capital; it's in the budget. This year he's spending $100 million and they're using the $500-million pork barrel.

My question is to the Premier. People are extremely angry that you actually are not spending more money on jobs. The only additional money you're spending is on this advertising agency. It makes no sense to the people of Ontario. I'm asking you this, Premier, will you undertake now to stop this nonsense of hiring an advertising agency and spending the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars on advertising and will you agree to put that money into job creation?

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

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): It is appropriate --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Treasurer.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for St Catharines. The member for St Catharines, come to order.

Hon Mr Laughren: It is appropriate that the question be referred to me. The whole capital allocation in the province comes through the treasury board and the Treasurer's office, so it is most appropriate that I deal with this question.

The member for Scarborough-Agincourt should understand that when we established the Jobs Ontario program, it is important that the private sector and others out there across Ontario take part in our Jobs Ontario strategy. They are important partners in this program, and you would be the first to criticize, I suggest, if we were simply to drop the program out with an announcement in the Legislature and not make every effort to communicate to the people out across the province who are necessary to make this program work. That's why we're doing some advertising; that's why we're hiring an advertising agency to do it.

Mr Phillips: Can you imagine the people at home watching this, thousands and thousands of people without work, thousands and thousands of organizations that are looking for opportunities to work with the government? You have literally hundreds of communications people working for the government. Why in the world at this point in time -- the leader of the third party just went through a tragic case involving an individual dealing with medical problems -- do you believe you need to go out and hire a brand-new advertising agency and spend money on advertising this program? It makes no sense to the people of Ontario.

I ask the Treasurer, why can you not simply cancel that nonsense of getting another advertising agency and use your existing communications apparatus to do the job?

Hon Mr Laughren: Whether we employ a different ad agency or the existing mechanisms that are there isn't going to cost the people of the province any more. I think the member for Scarborough-Agincourt is not painting the picture very accurately.

I would remind the member for Scarborough-Agincourt that when we brought down the budget, and as a result of some changes and increases that have been made in job creation since then, we were talking about creating and supporting over 90,000 jobs in this budget. I think it's terribly important that the people who are going to make our job strategy work are out there across Ontario. We want them to know about this program.

The member for Scarborough-Agincourt would be the first one on his feet if we announced this program and then it wasn't allocated to the fullest extent possible. If the private sector didn't take up the opportunities here -- for example, in the Jobs Ontario Training fund -- the member for Scarborough-Agincourt would be on his feet saying: "Why aren't you telling people about this program? It's a good program. Tell the people about it." That's exactly what we're doing.

ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is to the Minister of Skills Development. Mr Minister, more recently, I'm sure you were made aware that the new president of the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto talked about two concerns he had with regard to the policies of this government. His main concerns were with the creation of more business in Ontario and attracting new businesses to our province. Of course, labour law won't be of any surprise to you, but you may be surprised about his concerns with regard to the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. I thought I'd bring them to your attention and ask you a question.

His criticism was the timing. He said we're trying to create a mammoth delivery system in a very short period of time, and I know that has been your concern and my own. With the concerns you have heard during the five-minute hearings, which I've criticized, from education groups, from workers, from the business community, from labour unions, are you still planning on getting OTAB up and running some time during the summer and, the second part of the question, will this really be a schedule 3 agency created by the cabinet during the summertime? What's happening? Will you please update us at this time?

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Skills Development): I welcome the question because two weeks ago I read the article in question that referred to the new chair of the board of trade of Toronto who had some criticisms about the pace of development of the board and so on. The previous week I had a meeting with the board of trade myself and responded to all its questions and concerns. The new president appears not to have participated in that meeting and certainly was not as fully briefed as he might have been with respect to developments.

The project is still very much on track with respect to the timetable we have established. I have asked all the participating labour market groups to provide me with nominations for the board by the end of August. We will be proceeding with the nomination of the board for September. There will be at that time a board in place that will be able to advise us with respect to the creation of legislation and a memorandum of understanding under which it can function. That will then come to the House for appropriate consideration.

Mrs Cunningham: We really do need to be reassured today and we have a wonderful opportunity because the Premier himself, when speaking to the issue of the Constitution, said, "We want to eliminate duplication of people falling over themselves," and that of course is the aim. We need to know if in fact there will be legislation and when it will be tabled because we're not expecting to be here past the end of this month. We need to know when that legislation will be tabled.

Second, we also need to know if the appropriate appointment processes will be followed for the appointment of the people to OTAB. The reason I ask this question is we know the public isn't satisfied with the process so far. If we could have the answer to that question now, we would appreciate it.

Hon Mr Allen: All the proprieties around the appointments process that normally attend appointments in this place will be honoured fully; there will be no question about that. It will of course take a few weeks after the nominations come in for that to happen. There will be legislation. I don't think any members are interested in having it tabled and debated midsummer, but there certainly will be legislation tabled in the fall, and the House will have a full opportunity to debate that and to consider it in all aspects and to pass judgement on it at the appropriate time.

1530

GASOLINE HANDLING

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. All over the province we have gasoline being transported and stored. In the past we've had unfortunate circumstances where these containers have leaked, have contaminated groundwater and have contaminated streams and lakes, and they continue to leak. So the transportation and the handling of gasoline in these containers is of great concern, especially those that are buried and leaking into the groundwater.

Madam Minister, could you inform the House what actions your ministry is taking to avert these potential environmental disasters and what safety regulations you're putting in place?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): This is indeed an important environmental question. There are in fact thousands of underground storage tanks. At any given time they can leak, and there have been minor leaks.

My ministry has been working on revisions to the gasoline handling code to require additional safeguards. These would include secondary containments, including double-walled tanks for new tank installations, enhanced spill prevention and leak detection of underground storage tanks.

Currently, the gasoline handling code requires that unused underground storage tanks be removed. They're just not allowed to stay in the ground any more. We have an ongoing program that's still in progress to make sure that people are given instructions to remove these old tanks.

Mr Wiseman: I believe the Gasoline Handling Act will have to be revised in order to allow for greater safety mechanisms and greater regulations around the handling of this gasoline. When can be expect to see some amendments to the Gasoline Handling Act?

Hon Ms Churley: I believe there is some sense of urgency to this. As I mentioned, there are thousands of these tanks out there and there is potential possibly down the road for major leaks. It hasn't happened yet, and in some ways we've been lucky. I'm hoping we will be bringing forth these new provisions some time this year.

HOSPITAL BEDS

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): My question is to the Minister of Health regarding the NDP government's apparent inability to maintain a minimum level of health care for the people of Ontario.

Recently Dr Kathy Kovacs, chief of emergency at the Royal Ottawa Hospital, told a radio interviewer that cutbacks in psychiatric beds have created a serious problem. She was responding to the cutting of psychiatric beds at the Queensway-Carleton Hospital and at Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario. She had this to say, and it's an exact quote: "It's really gotten to the point that unless somebody is extremely ill, acutely suicidal or homicidal, we just can't take them in. There aren't any beds."

My question to the minister is this: Is it the policy of your government to restrict psychiatric emergency admissions to extremely ill, homicidal and suicidal patients and, if not, what are you going to do to rectify this critical problem in Ottawa-Carleton?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I'm pleased to assure the member very clearly that this is not our policy; it's not a policy of this government. Certainly we hope we will be able to work with all communities, Ottawa included, through the district health councils and all the hospitals around the kinds of ways that hospitals are managing through these very difficult economic times that all public sectors are facing at this point in time.

As you know, we have increased global funding to the hospitals this year; we didn't cut back. But certainly the rate of growth has decreased dramatically. We're working with those hospitals to try to find cuts in material resources before resources to patients and human resources in the front line of delivering services.

I recognize the concern the member raised. I have raised those concerns as I've been talking with hospital administrators and district health councils myself, in particular with respect to psychiatric beds. The ministry had asked that all reports of psychiatric bed closures come forward to the ministry first. We were looking at protecting those services. In many cases, hospitals have gone ahead and taken action without that kind of approval.

I think that by working through our district health councils and with the other hospitals in the region, we can try to address those problems. I'd be pleased to talk with the member about it and about an action plan about how to try to use the resources that are there in a more efficient way later, if he would like that.

Mr Chiarelli: I can understand the minister's sincerity and her hard work in trying to handle a very difficult portfolio. On the other hand, the minister is a member of this government. She should be able to talk about allocating resources in a way that doesn't put psychiatric patients in Ottawa-Carleton and other communities out on the street. If she talks to the management at the Royal Ottawa Hospital, she'll find out they're lining up people in the corridors because they don't have beds, as other beds in the community are being shut down.

At a time when the Ministry of Labour budget is increased by $100 million a year, at a time when we see more money spent on advertising and when we see questions on moneys being spent on public opinion surveys in this government, how can you justify putting psychiatric patients out on the street? You're not managing this ministry in a way that's compatible with the budget of the province. You should be providing beds for people who need them. It's not happening out there in our communities. I ask you, what are you going to do today, next week, for the people in Ottawa-Carleton and for the families of these people?

If I can use one quote, Mr Speaker -- I'll get to my question -- Dr Kovacs said, "Many families now just give up and I think we are close to the point of the whole system tearing." Are you going to stop the tearing today and next week, Madam Minister?

Hon Ms Lankin: First of all, I really have to disagree with you in terms of the way in which we try to manage the health care budget and what we are attempting to accomplish. As you well know, the increase in the Ministry of Health budget has been 2%, and to hospitals it has been 2.3%. We're hoping to try and work with hospitals to use the money that is going out there in a more efficient way and try to take waste out of the system.

I disagree with the member that beds equal good health. We need to have beds for people when they require them. We have a lot of people using beds inappropriately due to inappropriate admissions or due to inefficiencies in the system that keep them in hospitals for longer than is necessary.

I think one of the issues he raises with respect to access to services for psychiatric patients is a very serious issue, not just on the facility side but in terms of community mental health. We have seen, over the last number of years, a large increase in dollars spent in community mental health but not in a planned way, not in a comprehensive framework, not in a way that ends the duplication of administration.

Quite frankly, we can take more of those resources and put them to front-line delivery of services. We're currently working to try to develop that framework for facility and community mental health, consistent with reports like Graham and others. I think those kinds of changes are systemic changes that are required, not a short-term infusion of money, as the member would suggest.

LEGAL FEES

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is for the Attorney General. Mr Attorney General, you recently introduced fee increases for court services. Michael O'Dea, head of Ontario's County and District Law Presidents' Association, said this about those increases: "Everybody is really upset and angry, and quite apart from the increases is the continued cutback in services."

Mr Attorney General, what I would like to know is, will this additional money that you're collecting -- in many cases some of these fee increases are of the 300% variety -- go towards the improvement of the administration of justice? Will it go towards reducing the long court lists that exist in the civil courts of this province? Will it go to providing more judges and more courtrooms? Will it go to providing more masters to do the work of the courts? Or is this money just going to go into general revenues?

1540

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): I appreciate the question from the opposition critic. Let me answer in part by pointing out to him that we stated very clearly when we announced the increases in the monetary jurisdictional limits of Small Claims Court that the cost of that would have to be covered internally, and we acknowledged that court fees would have to rise.

I can say to you, Mr Speaker, that we acknowledge that Small Claims Court is a very important court, especially for jurisdictions outside Metro Toronto, and because we believe it's important, we felt that it was necessary to raise the jurisdiction and, if necessary, to cover that by increasing court fees.

I also want to point out that, owing to a labour relations tribunal decision that was made over two years ago, all the staff who work in Small Claims Court are no longer regarded as independent contractors or independent actors, they are now clearly established to be government employees, and that ruling has cost the justice system at least $60 million in this year alone, and that also had to be covered by court fees.

Yes, we've had to raise fees. We acknowledge that. I can say to the member that on an almost one-for-one basis any increase in fees is being used to cover the costs imposed by the labour relations tribunal or the costs imposed by the increase in monetary jurisdiction in Small Claims Court.

PETITIONS

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I have a petition 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 petition is signed by several members of my constituency.

GAMBLING

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is against United Church of Canada's policy to indulge in any type of gambling -- gambling casinos bring crime to a community, not everyone has the self-control to limit their betting, low-income people will suffer from unwise use of their resources,

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

"Be it resolved that the Toronto Conference of United Church Women do strongly object to the Ontario government's proposed legislation to permit off-track betting, sports lotteries and gambling casinos."

CONGRATULATORY MESSAGE

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Yes, indeed, once again I have a petition and this time it's addressed to the Lieutenant Governor of the province of Ontario, to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and to the government of Ontario. It's addressed that way just in case any of those prefixes alone didn't make it valid.

This is a petition I have that I exercise my right to read. It reads:

"Whereas George Dadamo is the member of this provincial Parliament for the riding of Windsor-Sandwich;

"Whereas George Dadamo, with the outstanding assistance of his wife, Maria Dadamo, has just enjoyed the birth of his third child, a son, Anthony, on July 7, Anthony being a younger brother for sisters Andrea" -- you'll remember her, Mr Speaker, she was a page here a little while ago -- "and Leana;

"Whereas all members of this assembly wish the Dadamo family well, we call upon you to join us in extending our sincere congratulations to Maria and George Dadamo upon the birth of their son, Anthony."

That's signed by all of three people, but it's on behalf of, I'm sure, 130.

LANDFILL SITES

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I have two petitions. The first is signed by some 2,000 people and reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas the official plan of the township of King states that 'the township of King has traditionally been a rural municipality within the region of York,' and that 'the township possesses a significant amount of land which has historically been, and remains, devoted primarily to agriculture'; and

"Whereas this document also states that 'agriculture is an important land-based activity within the township,'

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

"We oppose the provincial government's proposal to take prime agricultural land in King township and turn it into Metro and York region's megadump."

I have signed this in support, Mr Speaker.

The second petition, you will not be surprised to learn, is on the same topic. This one is signed by some 750 residents of the King City, Vaughan-King town line, and it reads:

"The undersigned are vehemently opposed to the NDP proposed new dump in the city of Vaughan at Jane Street and on the King-Vaughan town line."

As I say, it is signed by some 750 people, and I have affixed my signature to that petition as well.

GAMBLING

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I am pleased to table a petition signed by very concerned members of the congregation of the Faith Baptist Church in my riding of Oakville South, which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP government intends to legalize casinos and is considering other forms of gambling in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas studies have been done which indicate that where casinos are found, they are inseparable from organized criminal activities; and

"Whereas most forms of gambling end up being a tax on those least able to pay; and

"Whereas gambling produces in many people a terrible addiction; and

"Whereas it would be more appropriate for the government to cut expenditures than attempt to increase revenues through expanded lotteries,

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop looking to casinos as a 'quick-fix' solution to pay down the deficit."

FRUIT GROWERS

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I'm presenting a petition today signed by 65 constituents from the Niagara presbytery of the United Church of Canada, and it's regarding the tender-fruit growers in Niagara. It states:

"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 United Church of Canada, strongly oppose restrictions on the tender-fruit land until economic viability of the tender-fruit growers is restored."

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature to the petition.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession;

"Whereas the placement of bilingual signs on Ontario's highways without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars, which should be used to address the current pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens;

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of adequate funding;

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving interpretation to the discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister who, as the minister for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under the act,

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million be revoked immediately."

1550

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION PATROL YARD

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): Today I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly. It's signed by 49 residents of Hay township, Stephen township and Dashwood, and I have signed my name to it. It is with regard to the Ministry of Transportation patrol yard at Grand Bend:

"We, the residents undersigned, feel that this patrol yard should be left open, as there are indeed problems in the winter with snow removal."

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislature which reads as follows:

"That the Legislature of Ontario 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."

It is signed by 212 residents of the county of Middlesex and I've affixed my signature.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the report of Mr John Brant, arbitrator for the greater London area, has recommended a massive, unwarranted and unprecedented annexation by the city of London;

"Whereas the arbitration process was a patently undemocratic process resulting in recommendations which blatantly disregard the public input expressed during the public hearings;

"Whereas the implementation of the arbitrator's report will lead to a destruction of the way of life enjoyed by the current residents of the county of Middlesex and will result in the relevant portions of Middlesex patently not being economically viable,

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

"That the Legislature of Ontario 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."

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition from 48 residents of the county of Middlesex and the city of London who ask the Legislative Assembly to set aside the Brant report, reduce the annexation and protect the rural way of life in the county of Middlesex. I might add that this petition was sponsored and circulated by the county of Middlesex, so I'm sure it too will wish to protect that farm land.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have signed the petition.

LAND-LEASED COMMUNITIES

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition, and it reads:

"We, the residents of land-leased communities petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the residents of Sutton-By-The-Lake felt the previous government set up a committee to report on land-leased communities but took no specific action to protect these communities; and

"Whereas the residents of Sutton-By-The-Lake feel it should be a priority of this government to release the report and to take action to bring forward the legislation on the following issues surrounding land-leased communities; and

"Whereas the residents feel the government of Ontario should examine the problem of no protection against conversion to other uses which will result in loss of home owners' equity; and

"Whereas the residents of these communities do not receive concise and clear information about their property tax bills; and

"Whereas there are often arbitrary rules set out by landlords and owners of land-leased communities which place unfair restrictions or collect commissions on resale of residents' homes; and

"Whereas there has been confusion resulting in the status of residents with long-term leases where they fall under the rent review legislation,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to follow through with a report and release the committee's report on land-leased communities and propose legislation to give adequate protection to individuals in these land-leased communities."

It's been signed by the Lawsons, McLaughlans, Jacks, Juns, the Summers and a number of other people, and I put my name on it as well.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have more petitions from the residents of north Toronto addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

"Whereas Toronto businesses are already paying the highest property taxes in North America and will be devastated by increases of up to 50% more,

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

I have affixed my signature and wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments expressed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Thank you. This completes the time for petitions.

LABOUR RELATIONS BILL

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The point of order I'm bringing to your attention is related to section 45 of our standing orders, and I'm making specific reference to the infringement on the rights of the minority.

I have been informed that the government House leader intends to bring forward tomorrow a time allocation motion which will cut off, except for one more debate, debate on Bill 40, which is the trade union bill that's before the House right now.

I simply want to advise you, sir, that under the new standing orders, this time allocation motion when it's brought in and debated tomorrow will limit to one more day in this Legislature the right to debate the trade union bill.

I want to advise you, sir, that the member for Lawrence in our party will be prohibited from speaking on the bill; the member for Halton Centre will be prohibited from speaking on the bill; the member for Wilson Heights will be prohibited from speaking on the bill; I myself will be prohibited from speaking on the bill; Dianne Poole, the member for Eglinton, will be prohibited from speaking on the trade union bill; the member for Timiskaming will be prohibited from speaking on the bill; the member for Renfrew North, as a result of the time allocation motion, will be prohibited from speaking on the bill; the member for Brampton South will be prohibited from speaking on the bill; the member for Brampton North will be prohibited from speaking on the trade union bill; and my friend and colleague the member for York North will be prohibited from speaking on the bill.

I submit to you, sir, that if you allow this time allocation motion to be tabled with the table officers and debated tomorrow in this Legislature, which in effect reduces the time to four days and the number of speakers to a handful of members, about eight or nine or 10 in the Legislature, the rights of the minority in this Parliament will be completely infringed and the rights of the people of this province to have the trade union bill debated fully in this House will be circumscribed dramatically.

1600

I repeat to you, sir, that there are some 13 members of our caucus who would like to have a say, limited as it is to 30 minutes, to discuss and debate and point out the good points and the bad points of the trade union bill. Many members of the Progressive Conservative Party will be prohibited from speaking on the bill. Thus far, only one member of the Progressive Conservative Party has had a right to speak on the bill.

Tomorrow we will see, sir, what the new rules do and how they infringe on the rights of the minority. Tomorrow the government House leader will bring in a time allocation motion and he will shut this place down so the trade union bill gets passed within the time frames dictated by the trade union movement, and it will be a sad day, I say to you, sir --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): I thank the member.

Mr Sorbara: -- and I ask you and I plead with you not to allow that time allocation motion to go forward.

The Acting Speaker: If indeed this motion is presented, the Chair will consider it in due course at that time.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I appreciate your ruling that once this situation does occur you can in fact rule on it. One other point I would like to bring to your attention is that a number of my constituents have asked me as their member to speak to this bill, and if indeed there is a time allocation motion brought forward I would like the Speaker to rule, how can I represent their interests? How can I speak in this Parliament where arbitrarily this government can shut me up, can shut up the opinions of my constituents and not allow us to bring that forward? I would ask you to consider that.

The Acting Speaker: The Chair will indeed consider this in due course when the time comes.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

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

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr37, An Act to revive Spring Green Co-operative;

Bill Pr38, An Act to revive Silverbirch Co-operative Inc;

Bill Pr53, An Act to revive Lyttle Investments Ltd;

Bill Pr57, An Act respecting the Borough of East York.

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr56, An Act respecting the Township of Uxbridge.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Does the honourable member have some brief comments?

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): No, thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed? No, I heard a negative.

All those in favour please say "aye."

All those opposed please say "nay."

In my opinion the "ayes" have it.

Motion agreed to.

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 Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): At the last sitting the official opposition had completed its participation in the debate in the normal rotation, including questions and/or comments. We now move to the Progressive Conservative Party. The honourable leader of the Progressive Conservatives.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I appreciate we're operating under the new rules of the Legislature. Given the cold I have, 30 minutes will be plenty of time for me today, and it's probably plenty of time for everybody else, because much of what I have to say some may have heard before.

I want to start with the same words I'm going to finish with. I want it to be very clear to all those who are watching these proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act unfold, to those who have grave concerns about investing their money in Ontario, about locating here, about expanding here, about coming here, to those employees, those card-carrying union members worried about their jobs, those card-carrying union members worried about losing rights to their union bosses, as this legislation will do, that I want them to understand clearly and unequivocally that they ought not, if they like this legislation, to get comfortable with it, that if they do not like it and they understand the job losses and the loss of individual autonomy it will lead to, there is hope.

As one of the first orders of business as Premier of this province, I would scrap these changes. I think it's important that businesses understand that, so they can perhaps stay in the province for a couple more years.

I'm trying to hold out a little bit of hope to investors who may have looked at Ontario as a place to invest and serve the North American market, but who on top of all the taxes brought in by the Liberals and the regulation by the Liberals and the New Democrats and now this piece of legislation may have felt: "No, I've listened to the NDP. I've listened to the Minister of Labour. I've listened to the Premier. I've heard what they have to say. They hate business. They misrepresent business's viewpoint. They will say anything at all to try and discredit the motives of businesses, large and small. That's not the kind of jurisdiction I'm going to be comfortable investing my money in or suggesting that shareholders' money should go in." I think it's important that they know we will scrap these changes.

I want to deal with some of them. Obviously I won't have time to deal with them all. This is second reading debate. We will be dealing with all the items individually. I will deal with a couple of the proposals, some of the key ones, but let me first of all just deal with the fact that this legislation is proceeding.

The Premier, the Minister of Labour and the government continually say that the reason for it is to bring management and labour closer together, to bring unions and business closer together. Yet the very introduction of it by a very anti-business Minister of Labour -- never have I seen a Minister of Labour so biased one way at a time when it's important that minister be seen to be understanding and unbiased towards both sides. Never have I seen that before, just by the virtue of his appointment. If there was a mistake Mr Rae made off the snuff, it was that.

I want to add that I have not seen that before in my time in politics with Conservative or Liberal governments. The appointment as the Minister of Labour was always somebody who was seen as understanding, sympathetic if you like, one who could be respected by both sides, management and labour. I don't believe there's anybody in the House who would think that our Minister of Labour is understood by business or that he has the respect of business. He does not have that respect at all.

The fact that we are proceeding with these changes concerns me dramatically. When you look at the other provinces and the countries we have to compete with, when you look at the reality of jobs and investment today, no longer can we be an island, an island of Ontario, an island of Canada. Some might wish this could be the case. I've heard them express that. But it is not the case. It cannot be and it will not be the case in the future. Even Audrey McLaughlin understands that.

The labour advocates, when they talk about the free trade deal, say they don't like that deal. They would go and negotiate a better one. The Liberals said they would amend the deal to make it better. I think I heard Audrey McLaughlin say: "It's so bad it can't be amended. I'd scrap it and bring in a new deal." The vision she wanted to lay out for Canadians was that Audrey McLaughlin would go to the States in an election year, take Bush, I guess, by his bootstraps, and whap, whap, whap some common sense into Bush and negotiate a deal that was in Canada's favour in an election year and against the United States's favour. If you believe that, you probably are one of the minority who think Audrey McLaughlin should be Prime Minister after the next election.

1610

But the fact of the matter is that even the federal New Democratic Party and the labour unions recognize that we must compete, that we can no longer be an island. When you look at other jurisdictions and how business, labour and government have come together to form partnerships, you really have to wonder why we seem to be about 20 years behind in our approach to labour in this province and in this legislation.

The fact of the matter is that this bill is about power: Who has more power, management or the unions? The second aspect of this bill is, who then has the power in the unions? Is it the rank-and-file card-carrying union members or the union bosses? Those are the two aspects of this bill. In both cases, it is power away from management, investors and entrepreneurs to the union bosses and it is power away from the rank-and-file workers, card-carrying union members, to the union bosses. Both of those, I suggest to you, are moves in the wrong direction.

But more important than that is the fact that it has been recognized by other countries, many of them quoted by the government -- I don't know why -- Japan, Germany and others, that if we have not reached the stage where management and unions are prepared to check whatever powers they have at the door -- because both of them have enough power to bankrupt and destroy any business, any province or any country, as it is -- if they're not prepared to check those powers at the door and come together to work for the common good of that company, or that part of the company, or this province, or this country, then indeed we're in big trouble.

This government is 20 years behind those other jurisdictions in understanding that it's not who has more power; it's how do we get business and labour coming together, forgetting what power they have and working together to solve the competitiveness problems that need to be solved in this province -- the training, the retraining, the apprenticeship, making sure we can compete with other provinces and indeed with other countries. That's what's so wrong about this approach that the government, the minister and the Premier are taking. You know, I think that deep down inside they know that and they understand that. So we get down to why.

Why are we dealing in this way? Why aren't we dealing with labour relations changes the way Michael Harcourt, NDP Premier of British Columbia, is dealing with them. Mr Harcourt has recognized that the labour relations act in British Columbia is one component of competitiveness, of ensuring that jobs are there today, tomorrow and in the future and that there are better paying jobs and that there is job security. He has brought business, labour and government together to discuss the overall competitiveness of British Columbia, including a look at the acts governing bargaining. Quite frankly, I think that is reasonable and a more 21st-century approach. I applaud Mr Harcourt for proceeding that way in British Columbia. I think he will get far better results than we will in Ontario. We're 20 years behind if we think the important issue is, who has more power, management or unions?

Just as so many of your other policies are 20 years behind, you're still trying to out-Liberal the Liberals on a path of disaster. With your coalition and the taxation and the regulation, you've brought this province from the proudest province in the Dominion, from the most envied jurisdiction around the world, where immigrants from all across the world put Ontario at the top of their list as a place where you could bring up a family in safety, where you could work hard, succeed and get ahead, where your children could have a future, hope and prosperity and opportunity, knocking Ontario right off that list.

Why are you proceeding then? There is only one answer that adds up. You are scaring investment away. You are destroying jobs. Study after study has articulated that. According to Ernst and Young, the most recent study, 295,000 jobs are at risk with this legislation. That's not including those potential jobs -- because we can't quantify -- that are not locating in Ontario just because of this government's actions in proceeding with this labour legislation. Those would be over and above that.

The government refuses to do any studies of its own, or if it does them, it hides them. I tell you this, if you have studies and you are hiding them from us and holding back that information, then you will pay a terrible price for that down the road, because it will out eventually. If you haven't done job impact studies, then you are negligent. Shame on you for proceeding with a piece of legislation as significant as this, which has caused so much outrage and concern, without doing a job impact study.

The only reason left is that it is a sop to the union bosses. They're the ones who funnel the money through the checkoff into the NDP coffers. They're the ones who provide the free workers on election day and organize the campaigns of many of the members. They're the ones who are saying: "It's payback time, and we want this power. Whether it is in the interests of Ontario, whether it is in the long-term interests of our members is not the issue."

The fact of the matter is that in the large unions that are calling the shots with this government, that rule the day with Bob Rae, his cabinet and the Minister of Labour, those union leaders have recognized they are losing members. They are losing members because jobs are being lost in this province. They are losing members as well because of a disillusionment over the ability of large international and national unions to represent the individual interests of workers on individual job sites.

This bill is designed to make it much easier to recruit and sign up new locals, new unions and new members. It is also then designed to give them more power once those workplaces have been unionized. It makes a presumption, which I think is very presumptuous of this government to make, that being unionized is better, even though the vast majority of Ontario workers, of their own free will, have opted not to be unionized. It presumes that this government knows what is in their best interests rather than what they themselves know and want and desire.

That presumption, I believe, is incorrect. I'm not saying that because you're unionized, you're necessarily worse off. In many cases I think they work very well. I believe in the right to unionize and I believe very strongly in the right of workers, having selected somebody in a union to speak on their behalf, to reinforce their case and withdraw their services. That is what collective bargaining is all about and what a strike is about. But this legislation wants to redefine "strike." You want to take the word "strike" and redefine it, and I disagree with that.

You also want to take rights away from card-carrying union members and give more of that power to the union bosses. Any polling that has been done has very clearly articulated that card-carrying union members think you're making a mistake, that it will cost jobs. They are very much opposed to the way you are proceeding. So it's not to satisfy union members that you're doing this, it is just the union bosses who are calling the shots.

There are a few specifics I want to mention and then I'll yield the floor to others who I know wish to debate this at some length.

One of the reasons for bringing this legislation forward, you have said, is to reduce picket line violence. You use the example of Quebec, Mr Minister, which brought in similar anti-scab proposals, as you call them, banning the use of replacement workers. Let me just say a couple of things. First, Quebec did have some picket line violence and still does, as we all know, more so than Ontario. There was another way to deal with picket line violence and that is to enforce the laws that existed, but Quebec opted to go with the banning of the use of some replacement workers. Over that same period of time, in spite of the much smaller economy of Quebec than Ontario, there have still been more picket line problems in Quebec than there have been in Ontario -- still more, even with that change in Quebec. So it is ludicrous that this change is going to affect that.

1620

The fact of the matter is that, when you look at the number of agreements that are settled and the number of workplaces, there is next to nothing in the way of picket line violence in Ontario. There is more in Quebec, where you say this change -- the reason for it here. The fact of the matter is that you are taking away some rights of some individual workers that I violently object to, ie: Striking employees cannot voluntarily return to work until the union boss says they can go to work.

Here you have the case of taking away the individual right, which we know has already been decided. We've dealt with the Constitution today, and I think any constitution that tells Merv Lavigne that he does not have the right to direct where his union dues are checked off to is a constitution that needs amendment. I want to tell you that up front.

But hear what you are going to say to a Merv Lavigne or to any worker in a unionized workforce: (1) If you want that job to feed your family you must join the union even if you don't want to. That's the law today. (2) You must pay union dues even though you don't believe that union represents you. That's the law today; we can't change that. (3) Even though the union dues are checked off, the union boss can direct that money to the political party of his choice over your own individual objections. We now know, after the Lavigne case, we can't change that. (4) If that union you didn't believe in decided to go on strike and you still wanted to go to work to feed your family, that's illegal.

That, in my view, goes too far. That takes away an individual's right to work at the workplace of his choice, even though the person is paying dues against his will and even though those dues are being spent against his will. Even though the union voted to go on strike, this bill makes it illegal to cross that picket line and go to work and feed his family and that, in my view, goes too far. That takes away the individual rights of workers.

You want to redefine "strike." "Strike" was intended as a withdrawal of service, a collective withdrawal, to put pressure on the employer. It was not designed as a line in the sand that nobody can cross; it was designed to say, "We collectively withdraw our services and we are very important to you as a company and we're making a statement and a point with this."

I do not accept that this will stop picket line violence; I think it will increase it. I do not accept that this provision gives more rights to individual workers; it takes more rights away from individual workers and gives them to the union bosses.

The certification process: I want to briefly touch on one issue there. As I have said, I didn't want to get into too much detail on some of this, but there are a couple obviously that bother me.

The post-application petitions: Currently the only way individual employees can express their desire not to join a union will be eliminated by this bill, even though petitions always lead to a free and democratic vote on the issue of certification.

Even consumers are protected. I know, with the support of the New Democratic Party and with the support of unions, I'm sure, consumers are protected from high-pressure, door-to-door salesmen. That's what union organizers are; they get paid by recruiting. It's like selling vacuum cleaners. The more you recruit, the more you get paid or the more you keep your job. It's a high-pressure sales job to try to convince and cajole people to join the union.

Even consumers are protected by law from high-pressure, door-to-door salesmen by a three-day waiting period. If you are pressured at the door into buying something you don't want and decide up to three days after that you don't want it, the law gives you the right to say: "I've changed my mind. I was pressured in that situation and I've changed my mind."

The petition process gives the right to somebody who felt pressured, either because of the environment he was in or the peers, the people around him, perhaps some a little bigger than he, or by whatever means he was cajoled into buying this membership, to say, "I wish to remove my name from that list." You want to take that right away.

I have a business right in North Bay, Bavarian Meat Products Ltd, where every one of the employees has asked -- and I raised it with the Minister of Labour and sent in numerous letters. They are saying: "We wish to withdraw our support for the union. Here are our letters, here are our petitions. Will you convene a hearing and see that this is dealt with?" It still hasn't been dealt with and the company is going down the tubes.

To take away the $1 union fee, one buck -- a vacuum cleaner might be $1,000; a set of encyclopaedias is probably more than that; some of these other things that you buy, we'll give them three days. But now a buck -- you want to eliminate that. Now it is just your signature garnered in any way at all; your signature, not even $1 to accompany it, and you want to take away the right of that individual overnight, on reflection in one, two or three days to change his mind. That goes too far; that takes away too many rights for individual workers, whether they are in the union or not.

I could go on at length about some of these, but I wanted to mention those two because those two take away the rights of working men and women of this province. They take away the rights of individuals. It distresses me that this government, and a party I felt wanted to defend individual rights -- obviously I was mistaken -- would proceed with legislation that would do that. That's not even talking about the extra power it gives to unions. The fact of the matter is that business is being scared out of this province.

I was intrigued as well -- I know there are not too many Liberals here today, but they will be because their turn to speak is coming up -- that they have expressed the concern that it's the wrong time for this legislation. Give me a break. When's the right time for wrong legislation? I've never heard anything so silly in all my life: not the right time for this legislation. You're either for it or you're against it. It's terrible legislation; it'll destroy jobs in this province; it upsets that delicate balance between management and labour that has existed; it will destroy as much as anything else the future for my children and for others in this province, and the Liberals say it's not the right time. No time is the right time for legislation that is 20 years behind the time. I wanted to deal with the bad timing aspect that seems to be the Liberal concern.

You NDP members all come in here with your heads in the sand. I'm going to tell you this. I want to relay one little story. I was chatting with a number of business people. I'm accused of meeting with business and trying to advance its concerns. I just want to put on the record that you bet I do and you bet I'm proud to advance their concerns. The Liberals even accuse me of this. I don't know why understanding business, its needs and concerns should somehow be seen as negative, but any time you accuse me of that I want you to know I agree with you. I'm happy to represent the interests of business, large and small.

I was at a meeting and we were chatting on a number of issues of concern to business. The vice-president of the company said, "My president is in Japan" -- it was the same time that our Premier was in Japan -- "and I want to assure you, Mr Harris, that our president knows that the Premier of the province is in Japan at the same time and he's gone to great pains to make sure their paths don't cross."

I thought, "My goodness, have we sunk to this level?" We're in a country where governmental ties are seen as positives in dealing with business. Here's a business person who doesn't want anybody in Japan, the business people he's dealing with, to know. He wants them to try to forget that Bob Rae is the Premier of the province of Ontario.

1630

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): He was embarrassed.

Mr Harris: He was embarrassed. Never have I heard that expressed before by any business person concerned about doing business abroad.

Then I couldn't believe that the Premier, when he was in Japan, gave a major speech on the labour legislation, telling Japanese investors and business people what he was doing. He was a joke. I have it from many people in Japan; he was a joke over there. They said: "Can you believe it? He's actually doing it and he's telling us he's doing it" at the same time as he's trying to get Japanese investment and entrepreneurs to come to Canada to invest in joint ventures and technology. I have heard from several Japanese people who were there that they just couldn't believe the Premier was that out of touch and out of step with the perception of this labour legislation that he would go there and try to sell it as a positive.

One of the biggest impediments to investment and jobs in our province today is this government, and this particular piece of legislation speaks volumes about why this government is the problem. They do not understand that business and labour have to come together voluntarily. They cannot be legislated together. You cannot legislate togetherness. You cannot say to a couple, to a man and a woman, "I legislate you to be married." You cannot do that. You must come together of your own free will. You must come together, both understanding the ramifications of acting independently. You cannot legislate, and this is what you are attempting to do.

In doing so, you are destroying the climate of business and union relationships in this province, you are destroying the climate of individuals in understanding business and the private sector and the need for the private sector to be able to compete, the need for investors to get a return on their money, the need for a profit. Quite frankly, all of that is contributing, along with your taxation and other measures, to the decline of this province that I love so much and in which I want my children to have the same opportunity that I've had.

We will violently oppose -- "violently" is not the right word --

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): We're trying to stop violence.

Mr Harris: We're trying to stop violence, particularly in the chamber. It unfortunately appears to be coming to that some days.

We will very strongly oppose this bill. We will fight it tooth and nail in committee over the summer. We will fight to make the best deal we possibly can.

I finish as I started, with this message of hope. To those individuals, card-carrying union members and those who are not, who want a future, who want jobs in this province, who want their children, their sons and daughters, to have the same opportunity they have had, and to investors and entrepreneurs, those who are in Ontario today and those who may wish to come here: Have hope, because come 1994-95, whenever the next election is called, I want the people to know that my plans as Premier are to scrap this legislation.

The Acting Speaker: Two minutes for questions and/or comments.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Quite an interesting speech on the part of the leader of the third party, interesting in the sense that for a person who purports to be -- no, he actually is the leader of the third party; I have to recognize that. To come out and say the type of things that he said in this Legislature about this legislation is quite interesting.

I just want to touch on one thing. He talked about Premier Harcourt in British Columbia, where there is a New Democratic government; he talked about the different approach that particular Premier is taking in that province when it comes to labour legislation and he talked about how that government is not going ahead with that legislation. They're not going ahead with those provisions because they're already in their Labour Relations Act. I wish he would make that clear.

I'll give you a couple. The professional right to organize is in British Columbia under that act. Security guards' right to join the trade union is in their Labour Relations Act. The question of labour boards to interpret all the employment legislation and other issues which he talked about are in that act. The list goes on and on.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): What about replacement workers?

Mr Bisson: Replacement workers are not there, but they are in Quebec.

The point is that about 90% of what the leader of the third party talked about is already in the legislation. Yes, he doesn't have to legislate it because it's already there. That's the point. I just find it quite ironic that the leader of the third party -- I understand why he's taking the position. He's taking the position because fundamentally he is opposed, along with the rest of the people in his party, to giving workers the right to get together, to organize under a trade union and to work together with their managers to find solutions to the problems that are inside those companies to work our way out of this recession.

What we are trying to do is set the format in place, such as there is in other provinces, to give workers and employers some sort of equilibrium within the workplace. That kind of rhetoric, quite frankly, in regard to what the member speaks about is very off line to making that happen and I think is quite regrettable.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I am pleased to comment on the leader of the third party's speech on this very controversial bill, Bill 40. Certainly I can agree with some of the comments he made and ideas and concerns he put forward, but I must say I can't agree with all.

We in our party have to wonder if the backbenchers on the government side and indeed the members of the third party really understand what the new rule changes do to us who want to speak on this important bill and other bills as well that will be put forward.

I find it really hard to believe that the third party actually voted with the government in favour of this set of rules that infringes on the democratic right of members to speak. You appear to speak vehemently right now against this labour bill, yet one wonders where the leader of the third party was when the bill was introduced. And there he was voting in favour of the rule changes that would allow this bill to pass even quicker.

We have some concerns. One that really bothers me the most is that this government feels it's the only one that cares about workers. Believe it or not, we over here do care about workers. You do not have the sole ownership of caring. We care that they are treated fairly. Our party cares whether workers have jobs so that they can look after their families and have a quality of life. We care that all legislation is fair and balanced, because legislation passed in this House is for all the people in Ontario, not just a chosen few. We are very concerned that this piece of legislation is very imbalanced. It doesn't have the balance.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Carr: Very clearly the people of the province heard the position of the Progressive Conservative Party, articulated very well. The point to be made is unlike the Liberals', who say it's a bad time. You might not like our position, but we've been very clear in saying what we will do when we form the government in 1995.

It's important, because the people who are running this province right now don't care about the job losses. They don't care that studies say we'll lose 300,000 jobs as a result of it. They don't care. They won't do their own studies. I say to the Minister of Labour, you won't do any studies because you're afraid of what the results will be. It's 300,000 jobs, and some studies have even gone higher. He says "Oh, that's not right," but he won't do his own. Will it be 50,000? Will it be 100,000? Will it be 250,000? Will it be 300,000? We don't know because he won't do his studies because the Minister of Labour is afraid of what the results will be.

I think they know very clearly where the Progressive Conservative Party stands. There's only one party that has taken a clear stand. You might not like it, but we are taking a clear stand on this and we are saying that the provisions that take away individual rights we are going to put back in when we form the government in 1995. We are going to introduce legislation that will make it through secret ballot, through the certification process, so the true will of the people in a bargaining unit will be found out.

They won't be able to use the high-pressure tactics that are used. We all know that during a unionize drive high-pressure tactics are used, particularly against the most vulnerable people who don't understand English. They are told: "Here, sign this. We're just going to get you more money." All those tricks are played. There's intimidation towards women in the unionizing drives. We're saying very clearly that the true will of the people should be heard, through a secret ballot. That's why in 1995, if they can stay alive, we'll take these provisions out.

1640

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I really think this piece of legislation should be put into its proper perspective. What this legislation is really about is giving those people in this province, like women and minorities, who never had the right, or who were intimidated in the past, the right to organize for decent wages and working conditions.

I agree with one thing the leader of the third party had to say, and that was about the comment from the Liberal Party that it's not the right time. I think that's just another way of saying, "We can't make our mind up," or else, "We don't really agree with putting legislation in to truly help workers."

The leader of the third party mentioned workers wanting to go on the job when they're out on a legal strike. I just want to explain to the leader that, first of all, when we talk about the democratic process and voting, workers do vote as to whether they go on strike. They also vote as to whether they want to accept the contract and go back to work. It's not the union bosses, it's the membership of the union that actually has the vote. They have that right to vote and they exercise that right.

One of the things I think this legislation will really stop -- I'm sure just about every member in this House has had someone, at one time or another, come to him and raise issues about problems in his workplace and then come back and say, "Don't mention my name," because he's afraid of being harassed or being fired. I think this will certainly help those people, especially the women and the minorities in this province.

The Acting Speaker: This completes questions and/or comments. The honourable member for Nipissing has two minutes in response.

Mr Harris: I believe the member for Cochrane South, who wasn't here during all my remarks, tried to summarize. Obviously he didn't hear, so he completely misrepresented what I spoke about for 30 minutes. In case there should be any doubt, I want to be very clear that I'm opposed to this legislation because it takes away workers' rights; it takes away card-carrying union members' rights. Those were the examples I used in my remarks. It's one of the main concerns I have. The second of course is the fact that it's 20 years out of date. It's confrontational. It will destroy investment and jobs in this province.

The member for Northumberland talked about the rule changes. She is quite right. The members of my party supported the agreement made by our House leader; the members of her party did not. That is for them to talk about if they wish. I am quite happy to defend our position. We believed the Legislature was not working very well and that it was time for rule changes. We were very supportive of that. We obviously were violently opposed to the package the government presented. We were violently opposed -- I don't why I have the word "violence" on my mind today -- we were strongly opposed to the government proceeding unilaterally with the package it had.

However, once the government came to the table, the three House leaders negotiated and shook hands and agreed that was the deal. We had been kept informed by our House leader throughout those negotiations and we agreed with him that it was a better deal than the NDP had before. It was better than the rules that were in place before they were there. Hopefully, the Parliament and the Legislature will work better.

We'd like to spend our time debating legislation, issues of substance, those we are for and against, and not bickering about rule changes ad infinitum. I just hope that will clarify those two positions.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Bill 40? The honourable Minister of Government Services. I want to remind the honourable member that he has up to 30 minutes to participate in the debate.

Hon Fred Wilson (Minister of Government Services): I've listened carefully and quietly to the debate in this House on the reforms that we propose for the Ontario Labour Relations Act. I've also followed debate outside this House by people in factories, in boardrooms, in committees, on editorial pages, and yes, even what those silly billboards are saying about those changes.

One thing has become very clear. Once we peel off the rhetorical mask hiding the faces and true intentions of those opposing these changes, we see a very nasty and a very narrow vision of Ontario, a vision that indeed would have been at home in the Family Compact of the last century, but is certainly out of touch with today's world.

It is a vision of an economically stagnant world where working people aren't supposed to have any say over the conditions in their workplaces, over their own economic or social lives or over their own health and safety, a world where worker participation is opposed instead of welcomed. It's an anti-democratic world; in short, a world without unions. It is a vision held by a few select groups, and it is a vision that Ontario's many forward-looking business leaders do not share. I don't have to tell the people of Ontario that this government also does not share that vision.

I don't have to tell the people of Ontario that throughout history and around the world unionism has been a key part of democracy, from the mills of 19th century Manchester to the mines of South Africa, from the plantations of Panama to the shipyards of Gdansk, and yes, the Spadina textile sweatshops and the steel mills of Hamilton. Then and now, unionism has been and remains a way for ordinary working people to participate in the way the workplaces function and in creating a better place for their families, in fact a place for all families, to live.

Without unions, we wouldn't have health care. Without unions, we wouldn't have health and safety legislation. Without unions, there would be no paid vacations, no pensions, no minimum wage or pay equity. To attack unionism, to suggest in any way that the playing field has been fair and that these reforms somehow unbalance it is nothing less than an attack on our democratic institutions and on an important part of our democratic way of life.

We may expect this from the Tories. They have in fact told us where they stand. Their direct political ancestors were that Family Compact to which I speak. But it must be very disheartening for the people of Ontario to watch the Liberals, whose political ancestors fought that Family Compact, lurching haphazardly to the right in a frenzy to join the modern equivalent to that compact. No wonder the faces of George Brown and William Lyon Mackenzie look so discouraged and betrayed as they gaze upon the halls of Queen's Park these days. They, I believe, would have understood that changing times call for changes in labour laws if those laws are to be fair to all people.

The face of Ontario's workplace is changing. More women, visible minorities and new Canadians are now doing the work of fueling Ontario's economy. They are looking towards unions to help give them a say in the productive planning and re-energizing of that economy. They know they can no longer look to the Liberal Party for leadership or sympathy, let alone support. But they also know their government is on their side, because it truly represents the people and not the special interests of Ontario, which is precisely why we have introduced this legislation.

There is a very personal reason why I support this legislation and why I'm in a unique position, I believe, to speak to it. Back in my office on the wall behind my desk is something very special, a framed copy of my union card presented to me by my union. I have always been proud to be a union member and I'll tell you why I first became one.

Not that many years ago, I had to make a choice. I wasn't a labour academic, nor was I a militant radical. I was a family man, a worker, a Canadian Forces veteran, a husband and a father. I was, like most other Ontarians, struggling to make a living for my family. Sure, I needed to work to make money, but I also held strong beliefs, beliefs shared by most Ontarians, then and now. I believed in justice, fairness and dignity; I still do, which is why I'm a member of this party and this government.

Because of those beliefs, my labour colleagues and I made several requests of a company we worked for through the company union. How extreme were those requests? Some of them were: We asked for a 40-hour workweek; we asked for voluntary rather than forced overtime, and we asked for the right to form -- just to form -- health and safety committees. The company, through the company union, said no to all those requests.

We realized that throwing out the company union and forming our own real union was our only hope to achieve those goals, which would have made us happier, healthier and simply more productive workers. So we formed our union and within a short time the company had forced us out on strike.

1650

We paid an awful price. The strike, if memory is correct, lasted four months. Personally, I lost thousands of dollars, which I think was comparable to most of my colleagues. The tensions of course were terrible. My children, my wife and I all had to make sacrifices in terms of food, clothing, even accommodation, as well as lifestyle. On the picket line we were forced to defend ourselves against goons and guard dogs. For what? For nothing more than a 40-hour work week, a health and safety committee and voluntary overtime, right here in Ontario.

That's the Ontario the opponents of this legislation, including the opposition, would have us return to. But we're not going backwards. It's time to move forward because whether these groups like it or not, whether these groups know it or not, Ontario has changed since then and the laws need to reflect that change.

In the end, when our strike was over, we had won most of what we'd asked for, the company had agreed to most of our requests, but I asked myself then and now, what was the cost? When I think of the terrible, tragic, tremendous waste of money, time and talent the strike caused on both sides, I can only wish, as I wished then, that the sort of legislation was in place then as what we are proposing now.

I believe we have all matured since then. The company we had the strike against has certainly matured. It learned from the experience and is now one of the more progressive employers in the province.

As Minister of Government Services, I am now responsible for a ministry which is the employer of over 2,000 unionized employees. I know as acutely as anyone in the province the need for cooperation and partnership between management and labour. When we held consultations on this process we talked to everyone. We talked to the workers themselves and to their front-line managers. If I may say so, there's a forgotten breed indeed: the front-line manager. Along with the workers, they are the people who best know the need for better labour relations. May I say also that we consulted with many members of chambers of commerce and corporate executives who also understood the need to bring our labour laws in sync with the times. They are people like ourselves, like union members and other workers who do their best to make Ontario work.

If there is one word to sum up this legislation it is "maturity." This is mature, grown-up, modern legislation for a maturing and growing province. Other countries with mature, grown-up, modern economies, like Japan, Germany and the Scandinavian nations, know that a strong and responsible workforce and progressive labour-management relations are good for business because real long-term productivity comes from inclusive economies that include and respect all segments of society.

I would ask the opposition to drop its immature playground approach to economics -- the goofy billboards, the silly newspaper ads, made-up statistics as we've heard here this evening and scare tactics, not to mention the reading of endless lists in the House -- to be responsible, to be adult and, for the good of the province, to finally break out of the 19th century and join us in the 1990s.

This government knows that partnerships are what makes the economy successful and productive: partnerships between government and private enterprise, like the Jobs Ontario training fund and the cooperation we are fostering between auto makers such as Ford and Chrysler, and partnerships between management and labour. Any marriage counsellor will tell you partnerships only work when both partners get involved. This legislation helps to create the opportunity for all of Ontario's workers to get involved in building our economy and creating jobs.

We are heading for an economic recovery and renewal in Ontario. We must guarantee in law, as well as in fact, the rights of all Ontarians -- workers, managers, union members -- to fully participate in that recovery and to enjoy the prosperity it will bring.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Questions and comments.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the comments of the member for Frontenac-Addington. He made the very strange comment that he felt the Liberals were verging haphazardly to the right. I had an opportunity earlier to look at the number of bills the Liberals had introduced regarding labour legislation in the past number of years, and it shows precisely the opposite.

In 1985 the Liberal government passed Bill 65, which gave newly unionized workers help in securing their first contracts. In 1987 the Liberals passed changes to the Employment Standards Act which improved the working conditions for nannies and domestic workers, a predominantly female profession. In 1987 the Liberal government passed laws that indexed workers' compensation benefits to the rate of inflation. In 1987 the government started the workplace hazardous materials information system, which gave employees better access to facts about dangerous materials on site. In that same year the Liberals improved notice of termination and severance pay through amendments to the Employment Standards Act. The Liberals also passed laws enhancing assistance to displaced workers. In 1988 the Liberal government passed a law that provided for the most progressive pay equity legislation in the world.

The government also increased the budget of the office of the worker adviser, a government body which assists injured workers. In 1990 the Liberal government passed Bill 162 which boosted benefits to injured workers. In 1990 the Liberal government also improved workplace protection for employees under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

At the same time, between 1985 and 1990 the Liberal government created more than 700,000 jobs in Ontario. Does this sound like we're verging on the right? I think not.

Mr Stockwell: The rather vigorous defence the Minister of Government Services offered for Bill 40 is interesting. He cast his mind back for decades upon decades to discuss the perils and so on of unions and union representatives, and some of the points he made were rather accurate, I think, and fair.

But let me just suggest that what he offered in the way of a defence of this piece of legislation was absolutely nothing. He does not talk about the job losses. He does not talk about the studies. He does not talk about the effect this is having on business, the effect it's having on confidence in the entrepreneurial world about investment. You'll find as we go along that very little defence is offered for this legislation because there are simply no concrete facts with which to spin a decent argument.

We know full well that the Minister of Labour refuses to do a study that will show the impact of this legislation on jobs. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Why not? Simply because we know there are going to be losses. No one in his wildest dreams would suggest this legislation will create jobs, so there's only one way to go, and that's job losses.

Having this minister stand up here and recount from decades ago the concerns of unions isn't being very practical or isn't dealing with the issues we're faced with in the 1990s. This minister suggests we should jump into the 1990s. I suggest to this minister, sir, you've been living way, way long in the past. If this was truly needed, there would be a cry and concern from the public asking for this type of legislation.

The polls are clear. This is not accepted by the public. It's not accepted by the rank and file members of unions and the NDP. This is not accepted there and it's not accepted in the business community and it's going to cost jobs. It's shameful that you should bring this forward with an ideological bent that will do nothing but destroy this province.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I'd like to commend my friend and colleague the member for Frontenac-Addington on his points and his speech and to state that in many ways my friend exemplifies the hard-working employees throughout our province.

My friend speaks of the dangers and the risks that he and his colleagues went through when they first organized, and those are the kinds of things that this legislation is attempting to facilitate so that workers across this province will have the right to make choices. I have heard members of the opposition talk about unions as if they were some sort of nebulous, evil thing, but my friend exemplifies the kind of hard-working people who, through their choice, through their solidarity with other hard-working people, together decide to organize, together decide that as a group they have a right to speak for themselves.

I'm reminded of last weekend reading of someone in my area, a Mr Smith, who after 50 years retired from General Motors; 50 years this man worked at General Motors and he retires now at the age of 65. Every one of those 50 years he's worked hard. For him, getting up in the morning meant going to work and being proud to go to work, but he is also a very proud member of his local, Local 222 of the CAW, just as my friend is a very hardworking person. Unions are the collective voice of those people who are their members, just as my friend has said. So I again would like to commend him on those points and hope that the legislation he speaks to will produce the effects he's looking for.

1700

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I've been following this debate with some interest and watching it both here in the House and on the monitor in my office. One thing seems to come through that disturbs me and that is that in practically any other situation where we would have a debate in the House or a piece of legislation coming up for debate, people would declare a conflict of interest. One of the things that disturbs me is that everyone who is supporting this usually stands up and declares the fact that he is a member of a union. I say to you, I commend people who are members of unions and I have nothing against them, but when you have a piece of legislation that favours unions and members of unions are standing up and saying this is something that we need, we have a bit of a problem.

I want to give an example. When we had a debate in this House several years ago on extra billing there was one member of this House who was a medical practitioner and he of course exempted himself from that debate because he had a conflict. How can you possibly be proposing legislation, trying to be evenhanded, trying to propose a level playing field for all of the people of Ontario, those who are workers, those who are members of unions, those who own factories, those who are proprietors of small businesses, how can you bring forward a piece of legislation that in fact tilts the balance and is proposed by the very people who are going to be the beneficiaries?

This is a situation where there should be a level playing field. It is not "we and them," it is "us." It is for the benefit of Ontario that we have an environment that encourages investment, encourages business to expand, and when you tilt the playing field, what you are doing is discouraging all of those things from happening.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Frontenac-Addington has two minutes to reply.

Hon Mr Wilson: It was very interesting to hear the list of Liberal legislation that was read off earlier by the member opposite. It should be noted also that most of those were put in place when we were there beside them to show them how. Some time after that they began to falter.

In response to the member from the third party who says I dwell too far in the past, I will state simply that if you don't know where you've been, you certainly don't know where you're going. That brings me to a point. I'll read just a short quote and I wonder if the member knows where it comes from. "It is in the public interest of the province of Ontario to further harmonious relations between employers and employees by encouraging," I repeat, "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions."

That happened to be in the preamble to the legislation put in place by the Conservative Party of Ontario some 20 years ago.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. Perhaps I should see it as a particular privilege to have the opportunity to participate in this debate, since it seems that opportunity will not be accorded to many members of my caucus who would like to be able to express their concerns to share in the debate but may be excluded from that process because this government, with its new rule changes, may introduce a closure motion and cut off the debate for members who wish to speak to it.

On behalf of those few members in my caucus who will be allowed to voice their concerns in this Legislature, I do welcome the opportunity to speak to the legislation this afternoon. I do not welcome this piece of legislation, and I certainly do not welcome the impact on the province of Ontario I believe this legislation is going to have.

The government has introduced this labour legislation with virtually no study and with even less thought to the long-term impacts on the economy and on this province's ability to attract new jobs and investment. They've done so at a time when Ontario is going through what may be the most critical economic period in its history. Yet they have brought in this most important piece of legislation without doing any kind of proper economic impact study. Business says that the changes will cost jobs and investment, unions say this is an overreaction, and the government does not and will not even try to find out the real facts.

We're concerned because this government has not given any rationale for even introducing this legislation. There's been no explanation of why this legislation is needed, and in the absence of any kind of explanation, there is no understanding of any real benefits which might emerge from the legislation. All we're left with is our consciousness of its potential costs. The reality is that in today's Ontario this legislation will not create one new job, will not lead to one new investment, will not put one unemployed person back to work.

We're concerned because the government has used the smoke of labelling all opposition as anti-worker in order to sell this legislation. What's needed here is real debate and not just continuous false rhetoric. It's a concern for me that as I rise to speak to this bill, my criticisms and the real issues of concern about this legislation that I want to raise will be portrayed by the government as simply being anti-worker, anti-union. This has been this government's constant, continuous way of trying to deal with opposition to this bill: Ignore the concerns, ignore the substantive issues, criticize the critics, and then you don't need to change direction; you can just march straight ahead. You can do what you intended to do from the very beginning.

That of course is the way this government deals with any opposition and with any criticism. It simply tries to discredit the critics, and its defensiveness time and time again is a measure of its unwillingness to deal with the realities and the responsibilities of governing this province.

Let me just take a moment to trace the way the government has handled the opposition to this particular bill. After the government released its original discussion paper on the labour changes, the Minister of Labour held what he describes as being the most extensive consultation process we've seen in the province.

That consultation was stage-managed public hearings at 11 stops during January and February, and during these hearings the minister made sure that every time he heard from a concerned person from business, he also heard from a union supporter. This happened even though there were consistently more business people than union supporters who wished to present their concerns and their views to the minister.

Only this week, the minister has dismissed the concerns that were expressed through a poll conducted by a company in Ontario. The minister dismissed those concerns by saying, "Well, after all, only 53% of those who were surveyed actually knew about the study." Now 53% we recognize is in fact a majority of people, so a majority of people had heard about the proposals.

What the minister did not acknowledge, and if he'd looked a little more carefully, if he had any interest at all in the concerns that were being raised by the people who were surveyed, he would have looked at the study and realized that among those 53% of the people surveyed who did know about these proposals, the concerns were even greater than among the broader group. The fact is that the more people know about this legislation, the more aware they are about the proposals and their impact, the more concerned they become.

It's not just the minister who has attempted to simply dismiss any concerns that are raised about his legislation. That's also been true of the Premier. The Premier has consistently dismissed the concerns of Ontario companies certainly, which expressed their anxieties about the effect of these amendments. The Premier said to one television station: "Much of the reaction is based on the premise that either people haven't read the legislation carefully or they're creating the worst-case scenarios that are not terribly realistic." "So why should I have to listen to their concerns?" is the implication. To the Globe and Mail the Premier said, "You're just wrong that this is bad for business."

1710

The Premier is very clearly determined to dismiss any opposition that is raised from this side of the House. He's even tried to suggest, in what I see as being a rather desperate method to discredit the opposition, that in raising my concerns I was stepping away from the Liberal tradition established by Mowat in 1897 and that I was now defending the classes rather than the masses. He said, "She's buying into a line that no other political government in this province has bought into since the 1920s and that even Oliver Mowat couldn't accept 102 years ago."

Surely the Premier and his government do not believe that labour-management relationships today have not progressed since 1897. Surely they do not feel workers are no better off in today's Ontario than they were in the 1920s and the 1930s. If that's what this government really believes, I would suggest it step out of the dusty treatises of the NDP and into the reality of 1992 Ontario. If we do that, then maybe we can talk about the real needs of workers in Ontario today.

Workers in Ontario need fair treatment: They need equal opportunities, they need to participate in decisions that affect them, they need safe workplaces and they need access to training. But above all, workers in Ontario need jobs. They need an opportunity to work and in Ontario in 1992 access to a job is less and less certain. Today's unemployment rate in this province stands at 10.9%. There are 581,000 people who are out of work, 265,000 more than were unemployed in September 1990. Since September 1990, 242 plants have closed. Just between the start of this January and the end of May, another 63 facilities shut their doors. A quick calculation will tell you that is a plant closure in Ontario more frequently than every two and a half days.

Since this government brought in its budget and talked about job creation as being its number one priority, 23,000 more Ontarians have lost their jobs. This government fails to recognize our very real concern and the concern of people across this province that this legislation will cost even more people their jobs, and surely that has to be seen as a concern for workers, just as it is a concern for management.

The government of this province does an injustice to the people of this province when it tries to turn this into a labour versus management debate. Yet that is what they keep trying to do. Anyone who raises a concern is against workers, against women and visible minorities, against, it seems, those who are seen by the NDP to be still exploited by a rich class today in Ontario in 1992. But I ask this government to tell us what in fact this legislation does for workers, women and visible minorities.

It allows working individuals to be put in a position where a smaller minority of their co-workers can require a vote to be held on unionization. It forces workers into new bargaining units, whether or not there is a community of interest, for example, between full-time workers and part-time workers. It forces workers in different workplaces to bargain together as if all workplaces were the same and a problem in one workplace should be seen as a problem in another workplace.

This legislation takes away the right of individual workers to decide whether to cross a picket line, and at the end of the day this legislation may cost many Ontario workers their jobs. So we ask, is this legislation helping workers?

Again, this government has never said why this legislation is needed. What problems were so great that this legislation needed to be given a high priority? Ontario's record of labour management is not exactly a poor one; 95% of contract negotiations in Ontario are settled without a strike. Only 5% of the situations where strikes occur are ones in which replacement workers are used, yet the key point of this legislation is the ban on replacement workers.

If we look at Ontario's record of strikes and labour disruptions versus Quebec's, we see that Ontario's record is actually better -- fewer numbers of strikes, fewer people involved in strike situations -- yet Quebec has had this same replacement legislation for 14 of the past 16 years.

The government says that one of its reasons for introducing the legislation is that it's going to reduce conflict on the picket line. Yet we look at the kind of conflict that's likely to occur on a picket line and in the workplace later, on a much longer basis, when striking workers know that their supervisor has deliberately chosen to cross the picket line, and we seriously question whether this government hasn't increased the likelihood of violence on the picket line, not lessened it.

The government says this legislation will lead to cooperation in the workplace, yet from everything we've heard, this legislation is creating a polarization that is likely to make cooperation between labour and management impossible. There is no question that cooperation is needed between labour and management more than it has ever been needed before. There are fundamental changes taking place in the workplaces of Ontario, as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology must surely know. Every business and industry sector is re-evaluating how it operates, how it can begin to survive in these rapidly changing times. Everyone agrees that increased productivity, which can best be achieved by cooperative working relationships, is essential. On that point there is surely no debate.

I don't think there's any debate on the question that cooperative working relationships can be helped by balanced collective bargaining environments. But legislation that shifts that balance to one side can be absolutely disastrous for the cooperative working relationships that are needed. We are truly concerned that this legislation shifts that balance significantly.

The goal, surely, of maintaining a sound economy to create jobs, to keep people working and to put people back to work, is one that must be an important priority for all of us. Even the government has said this is its number one priority. Yet this government marches ahead with legislation that seems to address no pressing problem and yet threatens to make our economic difficulties much worse.

The government says: "Don't worry. It won't happen. The opposition is always talking gloom and doom. They've just been bought by the business agenda. Business is overreacting."

Yet this government absolutely refuses to do any studies of the impact its legislation will have. If the government believes what it says, if it believes the opposition concerns are just gloom and doom, if it believes that business is overreacting, why will it not put those beliefs to the test? Why won't it do some studies, look at what might happen and put the wild rumours to rest, if indeed they're wild rumours? The reason the government won't do the studies is because it knows it could not dismiss the findings of an objective study in the way it tries to dismiss the opposition voices. If they did some studies and showed that 295,000 that may be lost, or something more or something less, they couldn't just fall back on the Minister of Labour constantly telling us that he doesn't believe any jobs will be lost.

This government talks about partnerships. They claim, in the words that they write and the words that they speak, to understand that a flourishing business sector is the foundation for achieving a sound economy. They seem to realize, in the words that they use, that without a sound economy there won't be jobs for the unemployed in this province, for those who are now on social assistance, for the youth who are seeing unemployment rates at 20% this summer.

Not only will there not be jobs for people; there won't be revenues for this government to support the social programs all of us believe in. Yet this government, in spite of all its words about concern for the economy and about support for a flourishing business sector, continues to dismiss the concerns of businesses when those businesses raise their concerns. They dismiss the concerns of the business people who are truly struggling to stay alive in these hard economic times in this province and who know what this legislation means to their companies.

This government needs to listen to these voices, to just stop a minute, to just be willing to hear what are real concerns from people who are trying to keep this economy strong, who are trying to keep people working in this province.

1720

One Mississauga business person who has written to us says, "This province is in desperate need of investment and job creation. If this legislation is allowed to go through, we will see existing investors pull out and go elsewhere." A Markham business person writes: "A proper balance between government, labour and management is necessary for a thriving economy. The proposed legislation directs the balance too far in favour of unions." Another person from Aylmer writes, "If a company my size with 24 people and the type of work we do -- we're not able to hire replacement workers -- I'd probably have to close my doors, in which case we have no workers." An Etobicoke person says, "The government needs to research this idea better before trying to make it law."

Surely that's what we keep saying to the government. Yet this government that talks about partnerships simply dismisses these kinds of concerns as being an overreaction. In fact, Mr Speaker, this government continues, in spite of all its words, to just dismiss the entire agenda of business as if it were somehow hostile to the needs of real people. I wonder when this government will ever understand that economic issues are people issues.

Why will this government, if it believes in partnerships, not send its labour reform proposals to that very committee made up of labour and management representatives, appointed by the government itself, so their own committee can analyse the need for reform and assess what effect these particular proposals will have? This government claims it is consultative, but it has made a commitment to bring in this legislation and it is going to go ahead regardless of the impact, regardless of what it will do to business and what it will actually do to workers.

We wonder whether this government will address any of the concerns that we know will be raised by person after person, worker after worker, business person after business person, as it goes into this next consultative phase in the legislation. We wonder, for example, whether the government would be willing at all to address the concerns of restaurants. Closure could mean bankruptcy. Would they consider the 30-day ban on the prohibition on replacement workers the restaurant sector has suggested or will they simply continue to ignore the needs of this particular beleaguered industry?

We wonder if the government is prepared to look at the impact of this legislation on the just-in-time delivery requirements of our manufacturers. Will they let shutdowns at key suppliers close down an industry that has already lost 131,000 jobs in this province since September 1990? I wonder, Mr Speaker, what they will really do to agriculture when this legislation is passed, giving the government the right to regulate farm workers without any debate or any public consultation at all.

The government has said this legislation is no different from legislation in other jurisdictions. So what are we worried about? What's all the fuss? What's all the alarm? The statement that this legislation is no different from what exists in other jurisdictions is simply misleading. No jurisdiction has legislation that combines all the features these amendments present.

There are some proposals, like access to third party property for picketing, the provision on contract tendering or the provision for first-contract arbitration after 30 days -- these are proposals, as the government itself has proudly said in its background notes, that exist in no other jurisdiction, yet this government does not think this legislation will discourage investment in this province.

Mr Speaker, let us say very clearly to this government that you cannot ignore business concerns and still build the sound economy you know is needed. You cannot ignore the concerns of business and still see hope for the future in the few businesses that still risk their investment dollars here and that the Premier and the members of his government praise so highly when they want a response to our concerns about declining investment in the province. You can't explain away this legislation, the most sweeping legislation of any North American jurisdiction, when the Premier goes to New York, Tokyo or Italy to try and encourage people to come and invest in this province and create the jobs we need.

I say to this government, from the base of all the knowledge we've gained talking to people across this province over the past months and years, business is not bluffing. Stop and listen, or all of us will pay a future price which you stubbornly refuse to measure. If you believe in partnerships, be willing to form those partnerships. If you really believe in consultation, let the consultation be real, let it have meaning. Listen to the concerns that are being raised.

If this government really wants a sound economy, let us say to it, be willing to create the kind of climate in which a sound economy can flourish. If this government believes in meeting people's needs, help people have the opportunity to work. That really is all we are asking and I believe it is the very least the people of this province have a right to expect.

Mr Bisson: It was an interesting dissertation on the part of the Leader of the Opposition. I just want to share with the leader an experience I went through when talking to some businessmen in Quebec who actually took part in the opposition to the then changes to the labour relations act that happened in that province some 14 years ago. I was invited to this through an acquaintance I have in Montreal who happens to be the owner of a number of small businesses in that area dealing in the realm of sports fitness equipment for both the industrial sector, such as hospitals etc, and the personal sector.

This person had come to Toronto in order to meet with local business people here and to try to market some of his products in the province. We got into a discussion and he said: "It's really interesting. I listened to the debate about the Ontario Labour Relations Act and it's like being flashed back 14 years ago to what I heard in Quebec. I can tell you as a business person there, the change that happened at the time and what I see you people doing here is really nothing to be afraid of. In actual fact, we view it as something that's fairly positive for our economy."

I asked him to set up a meeting to meet with some of the people he knew within his business sector who understood and had been part of that debate, and we did that. Some months later, I was out there on a personal holiday and I had a meeting one evening with about 10 or 15 of them. What they were saying is exactly the same thing: "We opposed the legislation at the time, 14 years ago, in Quebec, the same way they are in Ontario, because we believed ideologically it was the wrong thing to do. When we looked at it some 14 years ago, we gave it the doom and gloom. We said it was going to lose jobs. We said all those things they are saying in Ontario. But we can tell you now, some 14 years later, that this legislation has worked. It has helped us to work with our employees and we see it as a positive thing."

Unfortunately, I don't have enough time to elaborate on that point. Maybe later on in the debate.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to commend my leader for what I thought were very balanced and thoughtful observations about an enormously important piece of legislation. In my view, Bill 40 will be the most important public policy the Rae government will enact in its five-year mandate.

I want to say that when my leader spoke as she did in this connection, she spoke for the majority of men and women whom I represent in the Ottawa Valley who are very concerned about this policy and this bill, who want me standing in this place in this debate, as I do now, to oppose Bill 40, because it is in their view, as it is in mine, untimely legislation that is fundamentally unbalanced. Bill 40, as my leader has rightly observed, will hurt, not help, economic recovery and it will hurt, not help, job creation.

In Renfrew county, where I have communities in some places with unemployment rates in excess of 20%, what those men and women expect of the Legislature and the government of Ontario is that we will work together in this chamber and with partners in the community to create new opportunity, to stimulate economic growth and development. They would want me to say on their behalf that Bill 40 fails that test.

1730

As I stand in my place today to make it clear that I will not and do not support this Bill 40, I am saddened to have in my hand a copy of the government's time allocation motion, which was tabled as my leader spoke. I just want my friends in this House to know that, as controversial as Bill 40 is and as fundamentally as I object to it on policy grounds, I find absolutely objectionable and despicable in the extreme that because of the government notice of motion tabled a few moments ago, we will have only one more debating day on this bill so that the majority of members in this chamber will not have a chance to speak, even under these rules, to this matter. Mr Speaker, this is parliamentary thuggery of the most transparent kind.

Mr Stockwell: I'm standing to respond as well. I have in my hand Mr Cooke's resolution to introduce time allocation on this. It's rather incredible for me to believe that this party has had two speakers on this important piece of legislation. It is now apparent --

Interjection: Shut up.

The Deputy Speaker: Please take your seat. With this type of language, of course we're going to lose control.

Mr Stockwell: Stop the clock, would you?

The Deputy Speaker: I would appreciate if all members would respect at least the language of this House. The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: I've lost a considerable amount of time in my two-minute --

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: Listen, maybe it gets frustrating on this side, because that's exactly what you're doing to us. You're trying to shut us up. They won't shut us up. They want to introduce this kind of motion when we've had two speakers on this side of the House -- two. I see the Labour minister smirking from time to time, and that certainly upsets me and upsets my constituents as well. It's shameful that you have brought forward that motion. It is equally shameful that in two days of debate, with two Conservative speakers on a motion that's as important as the labour legislation, your House leader would bring forward a motion that would call for time allocation and try to keep the opposition quiet when it comes to this piece of legislation.

I will not stand for it. And if somebody on this side of the House once in a while yells to the members opposite to shut up or be quiet, you've allowed us so little time to put our position forward, at least give us the courtesy of keeping your mouths shut when we want to offer it.

The Deputy Speaker: I would ask the members to please be careful with your language. There is one more person who has the floor on the government side, the member for Oxford.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I listened intently to the comments from the Leader of the Opposition as she pointed out what she thought were concerns. When we come down to the basic points of what is going on here, though, the issue has been mentioned of taking away freedom and taking away choice but I look at this bill as giving choice to people and giving more choice to them. Fundamentally, the choice that is being given to people, given to some people who haven't had the opportunity, is to decide on their own, in terms of organizing, whether a majority of people in a workplace want to come together to collectively organize into a union. I thought we'd had that specific date, about people being able to have that right, a long time ago in this province.

We heard a lot of talk about labour-management cooperation and some sense from the Leader of the Opposition that this is going to hurt that. In my view, in those situations where you have good labour-management cooperation, in unionized settings and in non-unionized settings, this legislation isn't going to change that. There is still going to be good cooperation between them, and they are going to continue being productive for the economy of this province and for their own businesses.

I do think, though, that in those situations -- and I have a strike situation in my riding right now where replacement workers are being used, and there have been some incidents on the picket line. That is a great deal of concern to me. It is a great deal of concern to the whole community, that the type of feelings and bitterness and antagonism that are left after a strike is resolved, due to the replacement workers being used, will have an impact on the overall productivity of a company afterwards, and that is not in the best interests.

While people have expressed concerns about the amount of time being spent on this, we also know there will be approximately five weeks of public hearings and of course the public will have a full opportunity to continue to comment on this legislation, as it did before.

Mrs McLeod: There is no question that the level of frustration in this place is going to get greater and greater if this government is determined to cut off debate on this most important piece of legislation. I say to this government, if this government believes this is good legislation, if you believe this legislation is defensible, if you're not afraid of the criticisms, then let this legislation be debated. This government, on this legislation above all, should not use its majority to cut off debate. It shouldn't use its majority to ram this through, to send this legislation to a consultation process that's going to take place in the summertime. This government should be prepared to let the elected representatives of the people of this province have their say on this legislation, and until that happens, I'm afraid the level of frustration will get greater and greater.

In my last minute I want to comment on one criticism of our criticism that I have heard raised by both the third party and the government, and that is that we have characterized this legislation as being not timely. Let there be no mistake: This is not Liberal legislation. It was clearly not a Liberal government that brought in this legislation, nor would it be a Liberal government that brought in this legislation. This is not legislation that Liberals are introducing. But when we question the timeliness of this legislation we are saying, even to an NDP government that believes -- if you believe this is needed, if you believe it will achieve your purposes, why would you bring in this kind of legislation at a time when more than half a million people are out of work and when this legislation will put even more people out of work?

Let there be no question that this party believes that economic renewal and job creation should be the number one priority, that this government should give more than lipservice and expensive advertising to creating jobs and should get on with doing what will create jobs in this province.

Mr Conway: Mr Speaker, I have a point of order to correct the record, because one of my colleagues left me with a bit of a worry as to how it might have been -- I said at the end of my brief remarks a few moments ago that the government notice of motion, which I have in my hand, to limit debate, represents -- let me say it clearly -- parliamentary thuggery of the most outrageous kind.

The Deputy Speaker: This is not a point of order. Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have prepared notes today to speak and I will use them, but first of all I want to register my distaste -- in fact, not my distaste, my disgust for this government. I am a new member of this Legislature, and in fact I have never been in politics prior to being elected to this House. The reason I ran for office was --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps we would have a little more order in the House if the members would take their seats. If the members will take their proper seats, please. The member for Etobicoke West, the member for York Centre, please take your seats.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Then we'll wait.

Mr Conway: There's going to be a lot of frustration, Mr Speaker, because the majority of members are not going to get to speak to this bill. It doesn't make any difference what is said in this place. This government notice of motion is cutting off this debate after two days.

1740

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Conway: I warn my friends opposite that it amounts to censure. You can have the new rules; we're not quarrelling about that.

The Deputy Speaker: The member, please take your seat.

Mr Conway: This House is going to come down if members are not given at least 10 or 15 minutes to speak their views.

The Deputy Speaker: Please take your seat.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for York Mills.

Mr Turnbull: I commented on the fact that I had never been in politics before and that I was concerned about the rising cynicism that exists for politicians and for politics in this country and in this province. It is a very distasteful experience to note that probably the most important piece of legislation, in terms of the economic impact Bill 40 is going to have on the province in this decade, is brought forward as the first bill after the government has rammed through changes to the House rules which limit the amount of debate members can have. After only two speakers from our party, the government House leader, in his normal way, has slunk into this chamber and put on a motion for time allocation.

That is absolutely incredible in any context, Mr Speaker, but when you put it in the context of the published data that the majority of people in this province, including many union members, do not want this legislation and are concerned about the economic consequences, for the government House leader to come in and cut off debate at this stage is disgraceful. No wonder people are cynical about the political process.

I have to tell you I am a fierce opponent of socialists, but I never believed the party across the floor would be the party that would want to stop the democratic process. In fact that's exactly what is happening. We have had totally two hours of debate from our party at this stage, and already the government wants to cut off debate. The Minister of Labour keeps on looking up at the chandeliers. I don't know what he thinks he's going to learn from the chandeliers, but I'll tell you that you should be listening to the debate and that you shouldn't be cutting off the debate, because this is going to be the death-knell of this province.

We have seen that in the last few months hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost in this province since you were elected. We do not blame you for all the job losses, but of late we do blame you for the job losses. I can tell you I know a lot of foreign bankers, and the German and Swiss bankers tell their clients unequivocally, "Do not invest in Ontario, because it is a very unhealthy place to put your money." That is going to drive further jobs away, and many of the jobs are jobs that won't be leaving; they just won't be arriving.

Your efforts to cut off this debate just heighten your obvious embarrassment over the fact that you're not prepared to do the economic impact studies that, we have said consistently, you should be doing.

This is a government that has spent $160,000 on a contract with Wally Majesky, an ex-union boss, and his son to do a consulting study, a study which he suggested they should do, for which the Ministry of Transportation said it had virtually all the information and they didn't need to do it. It was unsolicited and untendered. They gave $160,000 to their union leader boss and that's just the tip of the iceberg, because that's what this bill is all about: giving money and power to the union bosses, not to the workers. If indeed we were empowering the workers and making this a better place to be in Ontario, I think you would find the opposition parties would be a lot more temperate in their comments about this.

This is payoff time the NDP is engaging in for the support for the NDP over the years. We know that Bob White, the chief paymaster, is pulling the strings. This is a government that is embarrassed by the facts that are coming out, and you should be embarrassed. Every time we've asked you for impact studies, we've been stonewalled, and last night we had some absolutely lunatic statement read out by the minister that we would need heroic assumptions in calculating an impact study.

I would suggest to you, Minister, if you knew anything whatsoever about any impact study, you would know there have to be assumptions built in to any economic model. If you don't believe in economic models, at least have the guts to stand up and say so, but don't pay off Wally Majesky while at the same time you refuse to do an impact study of the most important legislation that we've seen and that we will see this decade. We have said consistently in my party that we will get rid of this legislation when we form the next government.

It's more than a little curious that the now Premier, Bob Rae, applauded and hugged the member for Welland-Thorold after his 17-hour debate on auto insurance and thought that was a magnificent effort, yet this is the same government that after two hours of debate by the Conservative Party is cutting off debate, and little more than that by the Liberal Party. They have had two and a half hours of debate so far. If you believe that it has been fully aired, you are dead wrong.

I have seen what socialism does in Britain, and that is why I am probably a lot more strident than other members in this Legislature. What we need in this province is jobs -- jobs for people that will pay money and will give taxes to meet our social obligations. We need a strong economy. You are doing nothing to help those issues. Instead of getting the economy moving, you're polarizing labour and management. I'm going to read in some letters from my constituents a little later and give some comments as to what they think.

Mr Speaker, I want to tell you that I had a seminar in my riding and I invited two prominent NDP apologists to come and put their side of this legislation, and they did. I must say they did it well. They spoke well and I appreciate the fact that they came because I don't want to deliver a one-sided picture. But after a very full debate, it was quite clear that the people of York Mills told me, "David, get into the Legislature and make our wishes known." I'm lucky enough to be able to have half an hour to debate this, but many of the other members of both the Liberal Party and my own Conservative Party will not have that opportunity because of time allocation.

When I look across the floor and see the smirks on the faces of the people who in the last election called Premier Peterson a liar and see them smirking about the fact that they're cutting off debate, I am disgusted. No wonder taxpayers and voters are disgusted with the political process, because we're going nowhere if we engage in this kind of parliamentary games.

We know that the government has shown its preference for central government, for control and a bias against the private sector. We've seen them move against landlords, against private day care operators, and we see them now moving against private nursing home operators.

1750

They refuse to cooperate, much in the same way as they refuse to do an impact study. It's interesting that there was a recent survey that suggested there was only 1% of Ontarians who thought this should be at the top of the government's agenda. There are 5% of the people of Ontario who believe Elvis lives. That's how important it is. This ideological bias the government has shows itself more and more each day. That is not surprising given the union background of the majority of the people in the government.

We have indeed a government in Ontario that is going towards greater state control. They're clinging to a dogma that's being thrown out in eastern Europe. It is so strange to hear comments of people from Europe. I speak to a lot of people from Europe because my wife comes from Europe. They are absolutely amazed that in this day and age we could have this kind of draconian labour legislation which is unwished for by the electorate and indeed has been demonstrated to do harm to the Ontario economy. It isn't just harm during your term of office. It's the future governments of this province that are going to have to try and persuade people that Ontario will again be a healthy place to invest.

Ontario, under successive Conservative governments, was a prosperous place. Indeed, we put in all of the groundwork that allowed it to remain a prosperous province under the Liberals. Nobody would deny that there's a world recession on and that Ontario and Canada are in major restructuring, but nevertheless, you don't go and throw gasoline on a fire if you want to put it out.

One of the major reasons the government would have you believe for this legislation is the need to stop picket line violence.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, the member for Bruce. Order, please.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I apologize for disrupting. I respectfully withdraw the comments that caused this dislocation of our business, but this prevents a whole group of people from speaking. It just is not parliamentary. It is the most --

The Deputy Speaker: This is not a point of order. The member for York Mills.

Mr Turnbull: Normally, I would object somewhat to that point of order in the middle of my short, 30-minute time, but I don't object because it is so much to the point. This is a government that doesn't want the facts aired. The socialists are howling across the floor because they don't like it. It's the fact that you are muzzling the voice of duly elected people who don't agree with you.

Let's just look at this nonsense they are suggesting about controlling picket line violence.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Please take your seat. Order. The member for York Mills.

Mr Turnbull: Picket line violence has in fact been reduced in Ontario. We know that when we look at lost days due to major strikes in Ontario, there was --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Take your seat. Order.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West, please. I asked you to --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West, I warn you, please.

Ms Poole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker --

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, the member for Renfrew North.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. We're getting close to 6 o'clock.

Ms Poole: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I believe the rights of a member of this House have been abrogated. The member for London-Middlesex just called the member for Etobicoke West a bigot. I very clearly heard it and I believe she should withdraw that remark.

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Mr Speaker, I am the member for Middlesex, and what I object to --

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please take your seat. You have raised --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Please take your chair.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. It being close to 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 1758.