Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): One of the duties of an MPP is to remind the government of the genuine needs that exist in his or her constituency and the region in which the member resides. That is why, for several months, I made statements, asked questions and delivered speeches in this House to bring to the attention of the Minister of Health and her cabinet colleagues the need for at least one additional CAT scanner in the Niagara Peninsula.

Persistence paid off, I am pleased to report, and on Friday, November 13, I will be attending the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the CAT scanner at the Welland County General Hospital. Mission accomplished.

On numerous occasions I have risen in the Legislature to reveal the plight of kidney dialysis patients who use the renal dialysis unit at the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines. I have described the conditions for patients and staff alike as appalling, and have provided a detailed description of the critical situation and the solution to this acute problem.

Once again I ask, on behalf of over 100 patients and a dedicated but overburdened staff, that the Ministry of Health provide the necessary funding immediately to renovate or replace the kidney dialysis unit at the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines. Your government has a fund established for such projects. The need is urgent and unquestioned, and only the announcement of the Minister of Health is required to meet this immediate and genuine need.

GRAND RIVER

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): For almost half a year now, the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Tourism and the Minister of Culture and Communications have been approached by the Grand River Conservation Authority and by many other members in this House to provide much-needed funding to the GRCA for the completion of its management plan, which is required in order that the Grand River might be designated as a Canadian heritage river.

One of the NDP's own members, the member for Cambridge, has risen in this House on two occasions now to impress upon the Minister of Natural Resources the importance of this project. Unfortunately, he has been rebuffed in both instances with encouraging talk from the minister, but no commitment.

In my own letters to the minister, I have been assured that the minister views the Grand River's heritage designation as an important goal, but he stops short of committing the funding. Words are cheap and actions speak volumes. If the minister is really serious about the management plan, he should stop talking and start acting, as time is running out.

It would be very sad to see an opportunity like this slip away. The Grand River valley has a rich diversity of outstanding heritage resources of national stature. Already, there has been a great deal of effort and expense to achieve the nomination of the Grand River and its major tributaries into the system.

I urge the Minister of Natural Resources to pay attention to his own colleague the member for Cambridge and the many members in this House who support the completion of the management plan. I urge the minister to stop the sweet talk and deliver the goods.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr David Winninger (London South): I rise in the House today to reflect in human terms on the vital importance of a job. I will focus on the adult education training information service being established in London, where my home riding of London South is located.

A job is a source of income, but it is much more. Personal pride and the social contacts that often lead to other opportunities are other aspects of having a job. Job loss often means that an individual is exiled from the world of job contacts.

This government is taking action to stop job losses. New skills are needed in our changing global economy and access to skills training information is essential. This is why the adult education training information service is so vital. A $200,000 Ministry of Labour grant will establish this service and fund the first year of operation. By next month, a computerized database of information on training, retraining and adult education will be available to 34,000 men and women in London looking for work.

On-line computer access will be available at the London Unemployment Help Centre, city library branches and Information London, which is also coordinating this project. Printed information will be available to individuals, counselling agencies, educational institutions and government offices. The adult education training information service is an important milestone in our journey towards jobs and economic recovery.

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): In the interests of fairness, I want to give the Premier some credit today for trying to do better. Many people, I think, have been critical of the Premier for running a kind of one-person band and controlling everything from his office. In fact, some of his own caucus, I think, have been critical. But I think we're seeing the Premier trying to do better and to change. Let me tell you how.

I think we all know that the financial results will be out tomorrow for the first six months. Normally, of course, we would get them a lot earlier -- last year we had them two weeks earlier -- but for some reason they're delayed this year until 1:30 tomorrow.

Normally, the Premier would want to be here to kind of bask in the glory of two years of the economic policies of his government, but now he's generously going to let the Treasurer take all the credit. Tomorrow morning at 10 am, the Premier's plane lifts off the tarmac, heads out west, and tomorrow at 1:30 he's going to give Floyd Laughren the chance to take all the glory for the first six months' results. So now I think we see some change in the Premier's office, allowing others to bask in the glory, finally. What a guy. Let's hear it for the Premier.

ORANGEVILLE SANTA CLAUS PARADE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to bring to the attention of this House a very special event taking place in my riding of Dufferin-Peel on Saturday, November 14: Santa Claus is coming to town.

As part of the celebration surrounding the Orangeville Santa Claus Parade, the Honourable Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, N.R. Jackman, has agreed to attend the Orangeville Santa Claus Parade as the parade marshal. It will be my pleasure to welcome the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario to beautiful Dufferin-Peel, and I look forward to introducing him to some of the people who have made Dufferin-Peel unique.

The Orangeville Santa Claus Parade committee, organized by the local business improvement area, has been working diligently over the past year to ensure that this year's parade goes down in history as the best one yet. The theme for this year's parade is Christmas in Toyland, and floats will include a giant 55-foot helium balloon in the shape of a toy soldier from the Nutcracker Suite. Kids of all ages who attend the parade will be treated to many floats, including the Canada 125 float in celebration of Canada's 125th birthday. There are seven first-class bands participating in this year's parade, coming from as far away as Ohio.

The Orangeville Santa Claus Parade will be a real treat for anyone who attends. I would like to officially invite all members of the House to come to the Orangeville Santa Claus Parade to meet our Lieutenant Governor and rekindle your childhood memories with an old acquaintance, Santa Claus.

1340

DOUGALL AVENUE PUBLIC SCHOOL

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): I'm pleased to report to the Legislature today the official opening of Dougall Avenue Public School in Windsor-Sandwich. The ceremony was held on Tuesday, October 27, 1992, and in attendance were about 500 people. I'm sorry that I was unable to be there.

This new $5-million, state-of-the-art school will contain several firsts for the school board in the city of Windsor. Each classroom will have a telephone so the teacher can call an absent child and find out his or her whereabouts by speed dialling. Dougall Avenue school also contains an elevator for use by staff and by pupils with disabilities.

This is another first in Windsor and also for the school system: It is also the first school to meet the Ministry of the Environment requirements for fresh air. The air in the entire building is exchanged for fresh air every hour.

Dougall Avenue school even caught the eye of 75-year-old Robert Puida of Windsor, whose daughter attended the school back in 1964. The gym is bigger; the library now has 65 computers.

The school colours are blue and red, and the enthusiasm in the neighbourhood is very high and proud.

I'd like to congratulate staff, students and parents on the opening of Dougall Avenue Public School in Windsor-Sandwich, and I'd like to congratulate the Dougall Dragons.

PREMIER'S COMMENTS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): It's fair to say that we've been aware for some time of the Premier's tactic of avoiding tough questions by his growing record of absence from this House, but now he also appears to be trying to escape his responsibilities even on those few occasions when the questions of the day are actually placed before him.

In a discussion about politicians in the referendum last week, Bob Rae called the criticisms "unfair." When asked about the job crisis in the province, Bob Rae said it was "unfair" to blame his government and himself. When asked in the House about his abdication of responsibility for the policing crisis in the province, Bob Rae said this was "unfair." When asked about his office's letter to the Ontario Municipal Board on a development project in his riding, Rae repeatedly said the allegation was "unfair."

At the press conference on the new chair of Ontario Hydro, Bob Rae said it was "unfair" for the opposition to blame hydro rate hikes on his government. When the question about taking time away from the House for his Asia trip was posed, Rae said this was likewise "unfair." Yesterday, when asked by the media whether he found it appropriate that Ontario Hydro had spent money to find a chair by employing an American headhunting firm when Maurice Strong was obviously already chosen for the position, Rae responded by saying he felt it was "unfair" to question in that fashion.

Does the Premier now want the public to believe that anyone who asks him a question is just being "unfair"? Does he feel it's appropriate to hide from every issue with this response? We hope that this is not the case, because when the Premier returns from the Asia trip, the questions will not have disappeared.

RHÉAL BÉLISLE

M. Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & Grenville-Est) : I wish to recognize the passing of a former member of this chamber and a highly respected politician by all parties, which is never an easy feat: the late Senator Rhéal Bélisle.

L'honorable sénateur Rhéal Bélisle est décédé hier à l'âge de 73 ans, et au nom du Parti progressiste-conservateur ontarien, nous désirons offrir nos sincères condoléances à la famille Bélisle.

Rhéal Bélisle a dédié 48 ans de sa vie à la politique municipale, provinciale et fédérale. Il a toujours été un grand fervent de sa religion, la religion catholique.

Rhéal Bélisle a été élu à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario comme député progressiste-conservateur pour le comté de Nickel Belt lors des élections de 1955 et encore en 1959. Il a démissionné en tant que député provincial le 3 février 1963, lorsqu'il a été nommé sénateur par le premier ministre John Diefenbaker.

À l'Assembée législative ontarienne, Rhéal Bélisle a siégé sur les comités spéciaux d'assurance-récolte et des lois municipales. Les gens pourront se rappeler M. Bélisle lorsque le Sénat a défait le projet de loi sur l'avortement le 1^er février 1991. Le sénateur Rhéal Bélisle était à ce moment-là le vice-président du Sénat lors du vote du projet de loi en question, et que le résultat fut égal. L'honorable M. Bélisle a déclaré cette loi défaite.

Le 16 mai 1982, le pape lui décerne l'honneur de chevalier de l'ordre de Saint-Grégoire-le-Grand, le plus grand honneur de l'Église catholique.

Lorsqu'on regarde sa référence dans le Guide parlementaire canadien, Rhéal Bélisle était un homme dédié à son travail. Il a représenté de nombreuses fois le Canada et le Sénat à travers le monde.

Au cours des trois dernières décennies, il a reçu plusieurs honneurs, tels que : président d'honneur à vie de l'Université Laurentienne, membre à vie de l'ordre de mérite de la culture française du Canada, membre fondateur du conseil consultatif national de la Fondation canadienne de la fibrose kystique, chevalier de l'ordre de Saint-Jean-de-Jérusalem, chevaliers de Malte, et j'en passe.

Encore une fois, nos sincères condoléances à la famille Bélisle.

NATIVE PROGRAMS AND SERVICES

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I want to take this opportunity to inform the House of some projects presently under way in Cochrane North.

Recently the Minister of Northern Development and Mines granted sums of money to several first nations in Cochrane North. The funds from Minister Shelley Martel are part of the first nations communities infrastructure projects program.

In Moose Factory, 10 houses are undergoing renovations to improve living standards. On the Constance Lake reserve, $180,000 has been granted to assist the first nations to renovate houses and the Mammamattawa camps to renovate and extend the community hall and to construct a band office complex, including a detoxification centre. As well, the present band office is being renovated into a child care centre to encourage the children to remain in a familiar environment rather than going into the nearest town for child care facilities. Other first nations child care facilities are being constructed in Attawapiskat near the shore of James Bay. At the New Post first nations reserve near Cochrane $180,000 has been granted to assist in the construction of a new community hall, to renovate homes and to landscape the grounds.

Through a joint federal-provincial housing program, two non-profit housing groups in Moosonee are planning to develop 75 rental homes. These will help ease the housing shortage in the far north.

Payukotayno: James and Hudson Bay Family Services in Fort Albany will see its centre receive electricity in the coming months. This project is also providing employment for 20 people for four months. The successful Jobs Ontario Capital program is providing the funding for this project.

I'm very pleased with the commitment my government has demonstrated time and time again to the aboriginal peoples of Ontario.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

BALLET OPERA FACILITIES

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): Today I am making a statement concerning the ballet and opera and disposition of the East of Bay land. In making this statement I am pleased to report that we have been successful in achieving both the economic and cultural objectives of this government.

Two years ago this government announced that it would not proceed with the funding for a ballet opera house on the East of Bay land. At the same time the government reaffirmed its commitment to the ballet and opera companies to work towards finding them permanent facilities by reserving the Bay-Wellesley site for them. It was a tough decision but the right one for a province experiencing the worst recession in decades. Ontario simply could not afford the ballet opera house proposal.

During these two years the need for housing has continued, as have the needs of the ballet and opera companies. Over the past few weeks, provincial facilitator Dale Martin, together with the Ministry of Culture and Communications and the Ministry of Government Services, has worked closely with Metro Toronto, the Ballet Opera House Corp, the Canadian Opera Company and the National Ballet of Canada to find a solution that ensures a home for the ballet and opera companies and allows much-needed housing to proceed on the Bay-Wellesley site. These discussions have led to a fresh approach in facing the dual challenges of housing and facilities for the two companies.

1350

Representatives from the Ballet Opera House Corp and the ballet and opera companies are in the House today. We have arrived at an understanding that recognizes, first, that the use of the Bay-Wellesley site for a ballet opera house is not feasible and, second, the land involved will be developed with housing as a priority.

Further, the province, consistent with its support for the two performing arts organizations, is announcing that it is contributing $30 million towards permanent performing facilities for the ballet and opera. This commitment will be realized from the development or sale of the East of Bay land, thus maintaining our commitment without any new demand on the provincial budget.

We estimate that our contribution of $30 million will create at least $100 million in economic activity. In addition, this will generate about 1,900 direct, indirect and induced person-years of work. This calculation does not even begin to address the multiplier effects of culture on the economy or the jobs that will be created through the development of the East of Bay land.

As a first step in looking for a solution, Metropolitan Toronto will investigate if a renovated O'Keefe Centre can be part of this solution. It would have to pass the tests of financial viability and meet the performing, administrative and rehearsal needs of the two companies. In addition, we would have to ensure that both companies have suitable performing venues during the time the O'Keefe is under reconstruction.

If the O'Keefe Centre becomes part of the solution, it gets a much-needed renovation, the ballet and opera companies will have a performing home, and importantly, no new cultural dollars will be spent on this project.

In developing the East of Bay land we are contributing to economic renewal through construction jobs. This land is a valuable resource. Since a ballet opera house on the site is not possible, the land should be and will be used productively. A mix of residential, commercial and community space development will contribute to the revitalization of the downtown area. In short, it's a solution for the 1990s.

As a government, we are committed to our agenda of creating jobs and focusing on economic renewal. We are also committed to supporting and nurturing our cultural industries and the arts sector, recognizing their important role in shaping our society and our economy.

The approach we are presenting today recognizes the economic realities and challenges of our time. It also reflects how individuals, groups, institutions and government can work together positively to achieve a creative outcome.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to respond to the comments of the minister and to say two things. One is that we believe both the opera and the ballet are essential organizations for the province of Ontario and we will be watching carefully the plans you've unfolded today here for an alternative site for them. On this side of the House at least, we'll be working closely to help them find the appropriate long-term home.

The second thing we'll be doing is watching the development in the East of Bay project. Frankly, if I sound overly partisan here, I apologize, but virtually everything the NDP government touches turns to dust, and we'll be watching the development of this.

I say that because you talk about job creation here. The unemployment rate now among young people in the province of Ontario -- and it's a tragedy -- is 20% higher than in the rest of Canada, and it used to be dramatically lower in Ontario than the rest of Canada. In September, the unemployment rate in every other province in this country dropped; in Ontario it didn't. The unemployment rate in Metropolitan Toronto now, unbelievably, is substantially higher than the national average. So in terms of having confidence in the Rae government's ability to tackle the economic problems and to use projects like this to do it, the credibility is dramatically lacking.

Virtually every one of the major economic renewal plans Bob Rae announced when he became the government and reannounced in a speech from the throne is on the rocks. Building a partnership in the workplace -- we've never seen it so divided and tomorrow we'll vote on a bill that will crystallize that.

We have been waiting for the training project. Training is the thing that Premier Rae said he is most proud of. We have not even seen a draft of the legislation. The Ontario Training and Adjustment Board is getting so complicated, so bureaucratic, that our fear is that the fundamental issue of dealing with training in the workplace is going to go on the rocks because this government has complicated it.

Regarding the Ontario investment fund, an opportunity to find capital to use to build our businesses, that idea has been polluted. We hear now that the teachers are saying they won't participate in it; OMERS is saying it won't participate in it. So the third plank of the economic renewal plan is on the rocks.

You talked about worker ownership; I'm just telling you that your plans aren't working. We have every right on this side of the House to be indignant and to say we have no confidence in this government's ability and no confidence in the Premier's ability to get the economy going. We see this project today that calls for job creation -- again, I might say -- and today we see the help wanted ads across this country. In every province in this country the index of help wanted went up. In other words, there's more demand for jobs everywhere in the country except in one province. Where is it? It's Ontario.

The Premier will say: "It's not my fault. I'm going to blame Brian Mulroney because that's good politics. I'm going to blame the GST. I'm going to blame everything else." But why is it that unemployment rates in other provinces are dropping? I tell you as strongly as I can: If we let this problem of youth unemployment continue, we, every single one of us, are sowing the seeds of a major problem. Youth unemployment in this province now is 20% higher than it is in the rest of the country. I tell you, all of us have got to tackle this issue quickly.

Seldom do we have ministerial statements to comment on; when we have them they are not tackling the fundamental issues in this province. That's why I've responded to it in the fashion in which I have today.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I was waiting to see in the announcement by the minister the announcement that there would be money for the kidney dialysis unit at the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): This is related to the announcement?

Mr Bradley: Yes, it is. This minister is purportedly saving some money for the taxpayers of the province of Ontario, and the money she saves could go to the kidney dialysis unit at the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): In responding to this statement by the Minister of Culture and Communications, I think one of the interesting parts of the statement is actually on the first page, where she says: "Two years ago, this government announced that it would not proceed with the funding for a ballet opera house on the East of Bay land. At the same time, the government reaffirmed its commitment to the ballet and opera companies to work towards finding them permanent facilities by reserving the Bay-Wellesley site for them."

I don't think it takes very much intelligence to understand that in this statement itself there is a tremendous contradiction. On the one hand this government says: "We are committed to our agenda of creating jobs and focusing on economic renewal. We are also committed to supporting and nurturing our cultural industries and the arts sector, recognizing their important role in shaping our society and our economy." Unfortunately, we have neither a government nor a Minister of Cultural and Communications that recognizes that the cultural industries and the arts sector themselves create jobs and help drive our economy. That's unfortunately the limitation this government is under.

Also, this government does not seem to recognize that when there is a commitment in writing between one government and the people of this province, that commitment is made. They seem to feel that at their own whim, depending on what their particular ideology is, they can change commitments that previous governments made.

I simply say to them that the announcement to sell this property in itself, at this time, is a breach of faith to the people of this province. If they are going to let this valuable land go in a fire sale, at this time, then what we say to them is that not only have they reneged on a prior commitment for another use, in conjunction with housing and other commercial uses of that property; they are giving away the most valuable piece of land that's left in the city core.

1400

Frankly, we don't think that the city core is the place to put affordable housing and residential development. There are no schools in this area. We feel that any kind of residential development should be where it is the most comfortable environment for the people who are going to live in those homes.

It's time we realized that the value of this land, if this government is bent on selling it, should be realized at a time when the market is more realistic to the real value. Therefore, this is not the time to sell it, and if it is sold, it should be sold for its highest and best use and the money taken and used by this government in direct shelter subsidy programs, not putting people down here in the city core to live in what they call affordable housing or non-profit housing.

We're simply saying that the government should get out of the housing business and look after thousands upon thousands more people by a direct shelter subsidy program from the income of any revenue it has from the sale of any land, especially land in the city core.

The other thing they have to give some answer to is the private sector, which has pledged millions of dollars, in excess of $25 million for this project which they're now abandoning. The question of the future of the O'Keefe Centre and whether that's practical or not, I will leave to the member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): With respect to the O'Keefe Centre and the feasibility of this particular project, I note that some two years ago this concept was outlined by Metropolitan Toronto council. At that time, the Ballet Opera House wanted nothing to do with it; it wasn't what it wanted. It wanted its own operation at Bay and Wellesley, and it was very clear that it wasn't an acceptable alternative. I'm frankly surprised today it finds it to be that acceptable.

I will also say that the $30 million has to come from somewhere, and you're going to have to generate revenue to pay for a $100-million expansion of facility that will downsize the O'Keefe Centre. It's a profitable operation that puts taxpayers' dollars back into the community at a profit. My thinking is that if the feds go along with it, and I'm not sure they will, you will turn a profitable operation, by downsizing it, into a money loser that will cost the taxpayers money.

The Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr Stockwell: My point is that I don't think the feds --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please.

ORAL QUESTIONS

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is to the Premier. Premier, the police crisis, which your government has created, has now spread to every corner of the province. About 90% of Ontario's 21,000 officers are expected to be involved in some form of job action in the next few days.

We understand the Solicitor General is meeting right now with police representatives, and frankly we all hope that this meeting will turn out well and that there can be a resolution to what is becoming a near-crisis situation. But given the Solicitor General's track record on this issue, resolution seems doubtful, given the fact that the Solicitor General himself has indicated that he does not have the green light from you to be able to take the steps necessary to resolve the issue. We are doubtful about a successful resolution through this meeting.

Premier, it seems quite evident that the police have little faith in the Solicitor General's ability to resolve the issue. They've asked to meet with you. Given the fact that you are here today and that your Solicitor General is meeting, why did you not join that meeting and help to ensure that a resolution could be found?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I say directly to the honourable member that the Police Association of Ontario, in its meeting with the Solicitor General on Friday, made it very clear that they were happy to deal with the Solicitor General. They realize the confidence that I have in him and the confidence that they have in him. They've been part of an ongoing relationship and dialogue with the Solicitor General over several months.

I want to say that the Solicitor General has the full authority to deal with this question. He has a clear responsibility to deal with this issue. The police association and the Solicitor General are, I am told -- I was advised as I was coming in here -- currently now engaged in what I hope will prove to be very constructive dialogue. In my view, that's the way it should be handled.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, I understand you've expressed the hope that the outcome of this meeting between the Solicitor General and the police will be as successful as the outcome of the last meeting between the Solicitor General and the police. As we observe it from a somewhat more distant view, the result of the last meeting was that this escalation of the conflict has now reached the entire province, and 90% of the province's police forces are now supportive of the Metro police job action.

Premier, we found it unbelievable that the Solicitor General would not consult directly with the single largest police force in the province before changing rules that affect the way they do their job. I find it utterly incomprehensible that you would leave the province before ensuring that a resolution to this situation has been found.

Premier, I ask you, in case things do remain unresolved after this meeting today, what provisions have you left in place to ensure that this serious crisis will be resolved? What flexibility have you given to the Solicitor General to address the concerns which have been raised by police officers in Metro Toronto and indeed in every community across this province?

Hon Mr Rae: I'm satisfied that the Solicitor General and indeed the government, together with the police services boards and others, have the ability and the means to deal with this issue and to create a climate in which we can have a constructive dialogue with the police forces of this province and individual police officers, in whom we have complete confidence.

I would say to the honourable member that I think this is the way the issue should be handled, in a way that people are talking around a table, talking in a constructive way. The Solicitor General is leading this on behalf of the government and I think he's leading it very effectively. It's a tough set of issues and he's handling it with great ability and with a great deal of personal commitment. I have complete confidence in the Solicitor General.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, it is a tough issue, and we are all tremendously concerned about it. We are concerned, Premier, that on this very tough issue, an issue which in fact is reaching near-crisis proportions across the province, you are not prepared to deal with a question that asks, "How can you leave this province without being absolutely assured that the crisis has been resolved?" Premier, your comfort, your degree of confidence, your ability to just say, "It will be fine and I can leave the province," simply fails to understand the degree of concern that exists across the province.

Premier, I want to take you back to some words that you used when you were in opposition, dealing with the government's response to a wildcat strike and illegal job action on the part of corrections officers in 1989. I raise these words with you because I want you to think about their application to the situation you face today:

"We have been critical of this minister for failing to meet. I continue to believe that if the minister had shown a personal willingness to meet with representatives of the union several days ago this matter could have been resolved, that the issues that led to this confrontation were not a secret to this government -- they are well known and well documented -- and that to this time, the minister himself has not even personally met with representatives of the union with regard to these issues."

Premier, I say to you, do you not understand that the way in which the refusal to deal with these issues, to meet with the Metro police, has led to an escalation of this conflict right across the province. In seeking a resolution to this issue today, can you assure us that you do understand why this conflict has occurred? Can you understand why it is an issue that police in every community across the province, from Thunder Bay to Trenton, feel very strongly about? Do you understand the kind of alienation that police officers are feeling? What will you do to ensure that these tensions can be alleviated, and that relations between your government and the police can be improved?

Hon Mr Rae: I think the efforts that have been made by the Solicitor General -- you mentioned my willingness. I spoke to the members of the Ontario Provincial Police Association. I think I'm probably the first Premier in several years to speak directly to such a meeting. I spoke at some length with people. I've met with people on many different occasions and I will continue to do so.

However, with respect to the issues that are now before us, I think it's also important that members of cabinet take responsibility, and carry out those responsibilities, for their portfolios. I have confidence in the ability of the Solicitor General to deal with what is a tough issue, one that must be resolved successfully and resolved in a way that shows a sense of mutual respect and a sense of mutual understanding.

That's exactly what we are trying to do and what we very much want to build on and work towards in the future. That's precisely the position we're taking. In a difficult circumstance, I think it's constructive and I think it's going to prove to be ultimately a very effective approach.

1410

SALARY OF ONTARIO HYDRO CHAIR

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to ask my second question of the Premier and return to an issue he did not respond to yesterday. Premier, yesterday we asked some, what we believe to be, important questions, clearly rather embarrassing questions for you, about Ontario Hydro. You did not deny yesterday that Al Holt, the former president of Hydro, who was forcibly deposed by your government, was given a $1.2-million severance package.

Your handpicked chair of Ontario Hydro has confirmed that his salary at the United Nations before accepting this new position was around $140,000. In his new position, he will make $425,000, an increase of 203%. Your Minister of Energy has now confirmed that an American executive search firm was hired at a cost of $100,000 to find a new chairman of Hydro and he also confirmed that the contract was untendered.

Mr Premier, yesterday you refused to answer this question. Your minister has now confirmed the facts of the case, and before you refer this question to the minister, Premier, I ask you very directly, how do you defend this action by your Minister of Energy?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr Speaker, I'll let the Minister of Energy answer that question.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Energy): The Leader of the Opposition included a number of things in her preamble, but I would assume the question she was wanting an answer to was the question about the search firm and the letting of the contract.

As we've said a number of times in this House -- and I think as has become very apparent because of the discussions we've had in this House around Ontario Hydro, around the capital debt of Ontario Hydro, around cost overruns and around the rate increases that have occurred over the course of the last couple of years -- as a result of significant lack of political leadership by two previous administrations, we've got a huge and important job to do in turning Hydro around.

The chair announced in July that he was leaving at the end of October. We had a fairly short period of time in which to turn around and fill a very important position. The contract for the search firm was let on August 28. The work by that firm all happens to have been done by Canadians out of the Toronto office of the firm. It's our view that the problem that had to be resolved here --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Charlton: -- and the position that had to be filled in a very short period of time were important enough to proceed quickly.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, you presumed wrong. The question that I asked the Premier was how he could even begin to defend your completely indefensible actions.

The Premier keeps refusing to answer any questions about Ontario Hydro. In fact, the Premier just keeps saying that our questions are unfair. I would say to the Premier, as he refuses to answer the questions again today, that people across this province do not think these questions are unfair. The Minister of Energy has said that he's not even particularly interested in these matters. Minister, I can tell you that the people whom I talk to across the province are very interested in these matters.

Minister, today we learned that the Premier's handpicked chair of Hydro, in spite of a $100,000 untendered contract to a consulting firm, is only to serve for two years. Will you confirm that the length of Maurice Strong's contract is indeed for two years?

Hon Mr Charlton: I can't confirm that it's for only two years because my understanding is that in fact it's for five years.

In relation to the Leader of the Opposition's comment about the unfairness of their questions, I wouldn't characterize the questions that have come from the Leader of the Opposition, a former Minister of Energy in this House, as unfair; I would characterize them as rather naïve.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs McLeod: I hope the Minister of Energy is not suggesting that it's naïve to be concerned about the way in which salary dollars, severance settlements, are going to affect Hydro rates and about the way that increased Hydro rates are affecting every individual in this province, from mothers on welfare to our biggest companies.

Minister, today we've learned that Mr Strong will receive a pension of two thirds of his $425,000 salary for what you now tell us is five years' work. This works out to $280,000 per year in pension. Will you confirm that this information is correct?

Hon Mr Charlton: As the Premier very openly announced on Thursday of last week, when he and Mr Strong sat in the press room downstairs and announced the appointment, Mr Strong's pension would be the pension that's available to all of the executives at Hydro, and nothing more and nothing less.

POLICE USE OF FIREARMS

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): My question is for the Premier, and it's related to the situation of the policing of the province as well. I must say that I find it rather ironic that the leader of the Liberal Party is talking about a crisis. This is a crisis, if indeed it is a crisis, that has developed over years. It was the Liberal Party that appointed Susan Eng, the Liberal Party that created the SIU, the special investigations unit. It was a Liberal task force that brought in most of these regulatory proposals, so it's passing strange to hear the concern today.

I want to ask the Premier about the regulatory changes, specifically the one that has generated the most discussion: the requirement to file a report when a revolver is drawn in public.

I want to remind the Premier of some of the problems faced, which are unique to the province, especially in some of the neighbourhoods of Metro Toronto. I've talked to police officers who have to draw their weapons on numerous occasions during a shift, who just a couple of weeks ago, when they were confronting a Vietnamese gang, had to use people they were arresting as body shields, as human shields, to get out of a building because of concern for their lives; the kinds of hazards that these individuals face on an almost daily basis.

When you look at that and you look at the unique concerns of Metro police especially in this province, I don't believe we've had a full explanation as to why this particular regulation was developed and what you hope to achieve by it.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I will try to answer the questions. The Solicitor General obviously has been very much involved in the discussions with a variety of people, including the Police Association of Ontario and other groups, with respect to this issue, but let me just put it to the member this way.

The purpose of the regulation is really twofold. First of all, it's to provide a degree of protection for the police officers themselves with respect to the filing of information. If there's an objective source of information with respect to an occurrence, it's the view of the Solicitor General and the view that I think emerged from a long process that this is going to be a source of important protection for officers themselves, in terms of recognizing that the pulling of a gun is an occurrence, an event, it's an event of some significance in the daily work of an officer, and therefore it's important to have that source of protection.

1420

The second is to ensure, in terms of training and in terms of the ability of police chiefs and of those who are responsible for the management of police forces, that training is done on an ongoing basis and that the chiefs of police themselves are able to see that the use of force, generally speaking, is appropriate to the circumstances.

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

Hon Mr Rae: I want to stress to the honourable member that those are the two basic reasons. There's certainly no presumption on the part of the regulation that it's either proper or improper for an officer to draw a gun. That's a decision that's made by an officer, it's a decision made by an officer according to the training he receives, and it's made according to the officer's obligation to protect his or her own life and to protect the lives and safety of other citizens. That's precisely the grounds, so there's no question of anybody second-guessing or doublechecking or asking people to think twice. It's simply a matter --

The Speaker: Could the Premier please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: -- there for records with respect to training and with respect to protecting officers themselves.

Mr Runciman: Clearly, the police officers across the province don't share the Premier's view, especially in terms of protecting police officers. If you read the Globe and Mail story today about a four-tiered system for reporting this -- talk about complex -- some sort of report for a variety of efforts in terms of drawing a revolver. A letter I have here from the Metro police force indicates that indeed these are going to be used for disciplinary purposes.

I want to talk about another element in respect to these regulations. I want to try to determine what the thinking was of yourself and other members of the government in respect to these changes: That's the one where the external consultative committee, which you paid little or no heed to, recommended that police officers in this province be allowed to use semiautomatic weapons.

Premier, just in Metro Toronto last year close to 1,200 offensive weapons were seized by police; that's just in Metro Toronto. We know there's extensive weaponry on the streets, modern, sophisticated. Our police officers are outgunned. The irony of this, as I pointed out to you some time ago, Premier, is that your own security officers can carry semiautomatic weapons and do, but the man and woman out there --

The Speaker: Could the member place his supplementary, please.

Mr Runciman: -- on the beat is required by you to carry a .38 revolver. Will you again, Premier, explain the rationale, explain to the public, explain to the police officers out there why your security officers can carry semiautomatics but the average police officer in this province does not have the approval from your government?

Hon Mr Rae: Let me speak very directly to the point. I can tell the honourable member that any decisions with respect to my own security are not made by me. I'm never consulted --

Mr Runciman: That's not the point.

Hon Mr Rae: Well, it is the point. I think I have to say this clearly and categorically so there's no misunderstanding. Any decisions that are made with respect to my own security arrangements are made by the Ontario Provincial Police and are made by the commissioner, I suppose, ultimately, with respect to the authorization of any particular issues.

Let me say with respect to the issue of semiautomatic guns --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): They don't trust you. They don't believe you. You may as well sit down.

Hon Mr Rae: I say directly to the honourable member -- if I can speak through the heckling from the member from Etobicoke -- that this is something which is still being reviewed within the ministry and by the committees which the ministry is consulting with, and it's something which is still under discussion. Again, that's something the Solicitor General has made very clear with respect to those questions. The questions of what the appropriate use of force is, what the appropriate weapons are, are issues that need to be discussed thoroughly, they need to be consulted thoroughly, there needs to be advice from experts.

As I say, in terms of the security arrangements which are made with respect to me, I'm simply not at liberty to discuss those.

Mr Runciman: This continues the double standard in respect to the Premier and this government. He can meet with certain groups in society -- pressure groups, vocal pressure groups -- but he can't meet with police officers. He can have his security force carry semiautomatic weapons, but the public or police officers on the beat cannot have the same protection. He says he doesn't have anything to do with that, but he has the final voice in respect to the police officer on the beat. It doesn't make any sense to us in here and it certainly doesn't make any sense to police officers.

I want to say to the Premier that he can do something positive here. We've got this stalemate, and I'm going to propose something: If he does not want to meet with the Metro force, would he at least consider coming forward with an initiative that will delay implementation of the regulations for another six months, until the middle of 1993, so that a broad-based committee, including front-line cops, can tour this province, get input from forces and public right across this province, before you proceed any further? Will you make that commitment today?

Hon Mr Rae: Let me say first of all that there's one other thing the member said in his comments; I think he said it's the view of the Metro force, or he's been told by the Metro force, that it's the intention of the government to use any information with respect to the regulations for disciplinary purposes. That's quite wrong. I want the member to know there is absolutely no such intention, and that's been made clear by the Solicitor General from day one.

The Solicitor General has made it clear that he very much wants to carry on a constructive dialogue with the police forces of the province on all the issues that have been raised by the honourable member. It is not the government's intention to delay or rescind the regulation. It is our intention to carry on a constructive and positive dialogue. It is our determination to do that, and if I may say so, it's also our determination not to exacerbate things, in particular, if I may say so, not to try to personalize things too much at a time when these issues are really quite difficult to resolve.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier, regarding the mess at WCB. Let me quote, Premier, from former NDP member and now chairman of the WCB, Odoardo Di Santo. He says, "Surely it must be clear that the foundation on which workers' compensation was built cannot much longer support the needs, let alone the demands, of those for whom it was designed."

In other words, Mr Premier, your chair is clearly on record as stating that the WCB is broken and that it cannot, in his opinion, be fixed. I think this is quite an admission from the chief executive officer, the person responsible for overseeing the WCB. I would ask you if you agree with your chair that this is an accurate reflection of the state of the Workers' Compensation Board?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I haven't seen the context of the comments made by the honourable member. I will only say in response to the honourable member's question that we all know -- I think everyone is aware -- that particularly in a time of serious recession, the pressures on the WCB grow. This was true in the early 1980s and it's certainly true right now in the 1990s.

The board is wrestling with some very tough issues. In particular, the board is having to contend with the fact that the business community, as the member knows, and certainly he's expressed this thought on occasion, is very concerned about the WCB rates. The board has just made an announcement indicating that it's going to be doing everything it can to hold the line on the rates. At the same time, we have to recognize that particularly at a time of recession, the social pressures on the board grow and the demands on the board for its services, the need for more activity on rehabilitation, all those things grow.

Of course this government -- I've already had some meetings with leaders of labour and management with respect to the issues around the WCB, and we're going to be continuing to do this as we look at attempting to deal with what is a tough situation. But the board is certainly taking steps to deal with it.

Mr Harris: Mr Premier, it was in a speech that Mr Di Santo made on June 11, 1992, to the annual conference of the Association of Workers' Compensation Boards of Canada. It's very clear that things have run amok at the WCB. There's an $11-billion unfunded liability. That debt is increasing by $100 million each and every month. Now the WCB is spending $200 million to build new office space at a time when our commercial vacancy rate is 23% and leases are available, by some estimates, for half the cost of this new building, and your chair is running around throwing his hands up in the air. Would you not agree with me, Premier, that it's becoming increasingly obvious that the big problem at WCB is management, that it's time for a new chair and a new management team at the Workers' Compensation Board of Ontario?

1430

Hon Mr Rae: The management team at the Workers' Compensation Board, the two senior appointments, consist of Mr Brian King, who is himself a disabled person, an injured worker who has worked his way to very effective management positions in the workers' compensation boards of both Manitoba and of Saskatchewan.

We find now, for example, that the costs of Bill 162 are 20% higher than the previous government said they would be. The WCB inherited a $9-billion unfunded liability.

The chairman of the board is Mr Di Santo. Mr Di Santo has been involved --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Rae: Yes, he was a member of this Legislature and, yes, a member of the New Democratic Party. So was Robert Elgie. Lincoln Alexander was a politician. Mike Starr was a member of the Diefenbaker cabinet.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): You appointed your hack.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Rae: I don't remember the member objecting to those appointments. I would say to the honourable member, Mr Di Santo --

Mr Harris: Answer the question.

Hon Mr Rae: I'm going to answer the question. I'm answering it as directly as I can.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the Premier take his seat, please.

Mr Harris: You sound like George Bush with his misinformation campaign.

The Speaker: Would the leader of the third party please take his seat.

The leader of the third party with his final supplementary.

Mr Harris: By way of final supplementary, let me say this to the Premier. The issue is not whether Mr Di Santo is a New Democrat or a Liberal or a Progressive Conservative. The issue is, he's chairman and he says, "It's out of control, falling apart and I can't do anything about it." That's the issue. That's his own admission.

We've pointed out to you -- and I've pointed out in this Legislature time after time after time -- things that are going wrong at WCB. Yes, you inherited a mess from the Liberals; we understand that. Yes, the deficit was $9 billion. Now it's $11 billion and it's still growing, and the situation is getting worse under your tenure and under your management.

Several times I stood in the House and raised the issue of fraud at the WCB. Today's Globe and Mail reports the problem is far worse than your government has admitted when I raised these issues. There is something wrong when an agency of the government has to investigate nearly 500 cases of potential fraud.

Premier, I ask you, as I have asked you and your government and your Minister of Labour many times before, will you today agree to call in the Provincial Auditor to get to the bottom of the problem at WCB, before any money is wasted -- money, I might add, that should be going now and in the future to injured workers?

Hon Mr Rae: The auditor has constant access to the WCB. It's precisely the determination of the management of the board to deal with the problem as soon as it heard of it, as soon as it realized that things are now emerging. I say to the honourable member, the issues have to be dealt with and will be dealt with, and this is something which all the citizens of this province have an interest in because we all have a very strong public interest in ensuring that we have an effective, efficient Workers' Compensation Board and one that operates effectively.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier. Premier, last August in promising special assistance to peach farmers who had been hit by a recent hailstorm, you said: "We are going to have to respond quickly to this current hail situation. We've got to make sure that help goes to those who need it."

As we raised earlier in the House in your absence, the Minister of Agriculture and Food has now told Niagara farmers that no new financial assistance will be made available to peach farmers devastated by the hailstorm. Premier, the peach farmers of Niagara region have asked us to ask you personally how you can justify this broken promise.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): What I told the farmers when I met with them in August, two days after the hailstorm -- the minister was there the day before me -- and what we've said to people, has been constant through the piece; that is, first, the essential line has to be the crop insurance funds which are in place. What the minister said, and what I said to confirm it, was that if the government could respond in terms of a financial package, it would have to be done on a basis that recognized the fact that the integrity of the crop insurance fund had to be respected.

As I say, there are other steps that need to be taken, but the difficulty we have, obviously, in a time of great economic difficulty and great fiscal restraint, is how to respond, particularly at a time when the essential line of defence that's there and the one that was established and supported by previous governments is the crop insurance fund.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, you told the farmers in Niagara region that help would reach those who need it. The Minister of Agriculture and Food, in this House, described to us the kind of help you were prepared to offer to the Niagara peach farmers. It was counselling assistance. The farmers will tell you, Premier, that counselling assistance is not going to help when the bank calls the loan.

Premier, your government has a very long record now of broken promises to farmers across the province. There was last year's decision to delay participation in the NISA program for income stabilization; there was $5 million in unspent funds from last fall's special assistance package; there was a promise last spring in the budget of $20 million in credit assistance under the agriculture investment strategy, a program which is not yet up and running and which will not help Niagara farmers or any other farmers in the current year.

Premier, given what is clearly your retreat from a promise that you made, how do you now expect farmers to believe anything you tell them?

Hon Mr Rae: I'm sure the member knows and I'm sure she also realizes that today is the day when my colleagues and I will be meeting with members of the executive of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, and we'll be having a very thorough discussion of a number of issues.

I want to say to the honourable member, we have had to face the fact right across the board that we are in a difficult financial situation -- we all recognize that -- and that there are limits to what we can do. I think farmers understand that. I think farmers also understand that the purpose of having something like the crop insurance fund is precisely to protect people against disasters of this kind.

If there are improvements to be made to the crop insurance fund, the minister has already indicated he's prepared to look at that, but crop insurance has to be able to be seen as the basic line of defence against the kind of situations which are being described.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): Also to the Premier, I'm sure the Premier's aware of the grave concerns that the rural community and farming community have about the two recent cuts in the budget, plus the cutback in the financial aid program that was promised last year. The Premier knows the concern farmers have over the Ministry of the Environment transferring decision-making on the authority of farm pesticides from a group that had some farmers involved to a downtown NDP group of bureaucrats who now control this. The Premier also knows that the Minister of Natural Resources is attempting and demanding the right to control what is a domestic farm animal. Mr Premier, can you explain to us this continued attack on agriculture by your cabinet and your government?

Hon Mr Rae: Quite the opposite. The minister has really done a superb job as the Minister of Agriculture and Food at a time of enormous difficulty. He has tried to respond effectively, given the restraints that we're working under.

We have developed new programs. We have tried to respond to crises as they've emerged. We have tried to make it more economic for people to farm and to deal with the overall financial and economic situation which we're facing, not only internally but also on world markets. I can say to the honourable member, our intention is to keep on encouraging that and to move in that direction in a positive and constructive way.

1440

Mr Villeneuve: If a 10% cut to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is an encouragement, I would hate to see the reverse of that.

You told farmers, Mr Premier, that the emergency assistance provided last year was cut because of higher than anticipated corn prices. Where in the world are you getting your advice, sir? There is something desperately wrong with that. The facts are that corn averaged $101 a metric tonne last year, $98 in September 1991, and it's been tragedy after tragedy.

Anywhere but in this chamber we could call the Premier something else but honest, but I will not use unparliamentary language, although it would be very easy at this particular point.

The Premier writes that Ontario has joined the national support program for agriculture, yet the per acre and the per bushel value is less than in any other province. The budget's been cut by 10%.

Mr Premier, please reverse the situation. Come across with the goods. Agriculture's in trouble. What do you anticipate to do in a positive nature next time?

Hon Mr Rae: I'll tell you what we're going to do. We're going to continue to work with other governments and we're going to continue to work with the farm community in the face of what is a very tough economic circumstance.

The member talks about cuts. I want to say to the honourable member that the Health budget has been restricted to the lowest rate of increase at any time since the introduction of medicare. This government has had to take some of the toughest decisions with respect to the operations of government.

If the honourable member looks around and listens to the language of his colleagues, what do they want? They want lower deficits, which we'd all love to have; they want fewer taxes, which would simply be superb. The Tory party can't have it all ways. You can try to have it all ways if you're in opposition. When you're in government, you have to take those tough decisions. You know it perfectly well. We all know it perfectly well. There are tough decisions that have to be made as we face what is, without question, the most difficult economic and financial circumstance this province has faced for many years.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Look who's talking.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question, the member for Lambton.

Interjections.

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): My question today --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Just a minute. Would the member take her seat.

I realize the members would like to get on with question period, and that would move a little more smoothly if the member for Etobicoke West would exercise some restraint. It would be very helpful.

DRUG BENEFITS

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): My question today is to the honourable Minister of Health. Madam Minister, it has been brought to my attention that a constituent in my riding of Lambton county was denied coverage of two drugs prescribed by her doctor. This was denied by the Ontario drug benefit plan, drugs which my constituent has been taking since 1984.

This situation is one where it took from last February until last week to even get a ruling by the drug plan branch. To make matters worse, my constituent is over 87 years of age and does not want to be a burden to her family for the cost of these drugs. No longer does she wish to take these drugs, and if she doesn't, she will simply die.

I find this unacceptable. I know the reputation and credibility of the doctor prescribing the drug, and I must say there's no doubt that these drugs are needed by my constituent. I also find it unacceptable that a resident of 87 years of age should have to be subject to such unnecessary trauma. What can be done to expedite a solution to this deplorable abuse of an 87-year-old Ontario resident who wishes to live her remaining years with dignity and who has never abused the system in any way?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I appreciate the opportunity to address the answer to the member. I've had certain conversations with the member where she has raised this case and have attempted to explain that there is information available which will help her assist her constituent.

Let me indicate that the drugs that are involved here are Trental and Persantine. Over a year ago, tighter regulations were put on the use of those two drugs under the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary. Trental is a drug that's used for circulation purposes. The Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee has made a finding that there are alternatives that are much more cost-effective that are on the formulary, and they can work with her physician to try to get substitute medication for her.

With respect to Persantine, under a special authorization, if the physician can provide legitimate reasons why the patient would require the drug, there is a process that could grant approval for use of that. But in many cases the drug is prescribed for general use, and in fact the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee will not qualify it for general use.

What I can say to the member is that we can try to work with her again. If she would like to have her constituent's physician call the DQTC, a member of the DQTC will work with the physician to help him determine what information needs to be provided to assist the case.

Mrs MacKinnon: Thank you, Madam Minister, for that. I will follow up on your suggestions.

Madam Minister, do you feel your ministry should be taking steps to eliminate the situation completely by having a procedure in place where a constituent such as I am speaking of would be exempt from having to go through this procedure every year?

Hon Ms Lankin: I'm not sure that I understand the member's question with respect to this being on an annual basis. If the information provided would warrant a decision from the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee to grant authorization, that authorization would stand for that prescription, then, for that particular patient.

One of the problems we have in the very particular case here is that the DQTC has not been able to obtain sufficient information from the physician involved to warrant a decision granting authorization for the coverage of these drugs. So again, we can try to work with the member's constituent's physician to indicate what kind of information is required. That may or may not allow the DQTC to arrive at a different determination.

LOTTERY TICKETS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): This is for the Premier. Premier, you'll recall that yesterday I asked you a question about the Sport Select Pro-Line gambling game and referred to the concern that I expressed about kids having access -- you've got some briefing notes today, I see -- to buy this in their corner stores. I appreciated your response. Not to quote you exactly, but I believe what you said is you would be concerned, as the father of three kids, if they were to have access to that.

Premier, in the Toronto Star it states that, "Tourism minister Peter North said there is a government policy -- but no law -- banning store owners from selling tickets to minors." It goes on to say, "Store owners could lose their lottery franchise for selling tickets to a child but that has never actually happened, lottery officials confirmed." Then Mr North said, "'I don't know how much more strict you can be.'" When I went on to say, "'If it's illegal to sell cigarettes to kids and illegal to sell booze to kids, why isn't it illegal to sell gambling tickets to kids?'" The article continues, "North dismissed that option, saying laws against selling cigarettes to children aren't very effective."

Premier, do you agree with your minister that because, in his opinion, laws prohibiting the sale of cigarettes to kids are not effective, we should do nothing about this issue?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think I indicated my answer yesterday. I say to the honourable member that it's my understanding that while there is no law, it is the policy of the lottery commission to restrict the sale of lottery tickets to minors, and this policy, I'm told and I'm advised -- and I have a briefing note here which I will share with the member -- is communicated to retailers in a number of ways: through regular newsletters to retailers, through retailer training and through regular reminders on retailer lottery terminals. Whenever there's a complaint, there's an effort to contact the retailer and ensure that the policy is adhered to.

The member has now raised an issue with respect to what other action could be taken, and I can only say to the member that obviously we will consider the member's point of view and other issues with respect to this issue. I can say to the honourable member that it's an issue to which I had not turned my mind until the member raised it yesterday. When he raised it, it occurred to me that there's an issue that needs to be looked at. I told the member yesterday that it was something that we would be looking at, and I'm sure we'll be trying to make an assessment as to what the most effective regulatory mechanism might be.

1450

Mr Mahoney: I appreciate that, because I hadn't turned my mind to it until I actually saw kids buying these lottery tickets in the corner store and until some of the parents in my community contacted me. As a result of the activity yesterday, I've received a letter in my office, addressed to my executive assistant, from Brady Irwin, coordinator of government liaison.

Mr Irwin goes on in this letter to say: "Fortunately, most young people are not attracted to lotteries. On-line games such as Lotto 649 and Pro-Line are particularly unattractive to young people because the games do not offer immediate results." I'd like one of the pages to come and take this over to the Premier so he could turn his mind to this rather serious issue.

This is the literature that is put out on the game. You can see that it's 8.5 inches by 11 inches and has eight folds, several colours and several pictures of a celebrity who's very famous to young people, Mr Cherry -- this is very critical, Mr Speaker -- where he's quoted in here as saying: "Play to win. To help you rookies get going, I'm going to give you this game plan."

I wonder, are the rookies he's referring to maybe the senior citizens in the province? I'm curious as to whom he could be referring to. To quote Mr Irwin, who says "the games do not offer immediate results": You bet on three hockey games on Saturday night and on Sunday you pick up the winnings at the corner store. That's pretty darn immediate to me.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place his question, please.

Mr Mahoney: You bet on Monday night football and you get your dough on Tuesday morning.

Premier, I have drafted here a private member's bill which I will be introducing today, to amend the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act by prohibiting the sale of lottery tickets to minors. A contravention of this bill would result in the --

The Speaker: Would the member please place his supplementary.

Mr Mahoney: -- revocation of the authorization to sell lottery tickets. Mr Premier, will you support my private member's bill, which I'll be putting on the floor for first reading today, to ban the sale of these tickets to minors?

Hon Mr Rae: I recognize that while the member may not have turned his mind to the issue prior to the weekend, I think we all, any one of us who's been involved in politics, recognize that he is responding, as one would expect him to respond, in an effective and direct way.

I want to say to him that I don't tend to indicate my approval or disapproval of legislation before I've had a chance to see it or read it, despite some of the things you might see. I would only say to the honourable member that anything he suggests is, of course, worthy of consideration.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): My question is for the Premier. Premier, very deep in the labour law, Bill 40, is an insidious clause which will lead to duplication. Section 23 deals with the role of labour arbitrators. The arbitrator will have the ultimate power to rule on employment relations legislation such as human rights. Bill 40 says an arbitrator or arbitration board shall make a final and conclusive settlement and has the power to interpret and apply the requirements of human rights.

In effect, this will make available to individuals two tribunals in which to file grievances, one under the Human Rights Commission and another under an arbitrator of the Ministry of Labour. How can you justify creating more duplication and confusion with the Ontario Human Rights Commission when there are already so many problems?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The intention is not to produce any duplication.

Mr Cousens: If that is the case, then you would have, in opportunity, accepted an amendment from our caucus that would have removed that possibility of duplication because, as it stands now, the labour arbitrator will be able to look at human rights issues and so will the Human Rights Commission. You could have duplication going on. In the one case you'll have maybe a different decision being made under Human Rights, and in the case under a labour arbitrator quite a different decision.

But the question which now comes under your Bill 40 law is, who pays for it? If a ruling is made by the Human Rights Commission, the taxpayers pay. If a ruling is made by an arbitrator, business pays. Are you not passing along another cost of doing business in Ontario?

Hon Mr Rae: The member is wrong when he refers to arbitration as simply business paying. The parties pay. The parties to an arbitration on both sides, both parties, both labour and management, are responsible for the funding of arbitrations.

This is actually something I know a little bit about, so perhaps I can just say to the honourable member that the purpose of granting the jurisdiction to the arbitrator is quite the opposite of what he's suggesting and indeed this, we believe, will be the effect of the legislation. It's to make clear the authority of the arbitrator to deal with human rights issues which are frequently raised and frequently have an impact on labour arbitrations. It's precisely intended to simplify the issue rather than otherwise.

It is not possible for us to limit the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Commission, but on a practical basis we do believe it is going to be possible for arbitrators to clearly be able to take into account a number of other factors. So rather than having two proceedings going at once or two proceedings going off in different directions, there will be one proceeding under the arbitrator, if that's what the parties choose to do and that's how they choose to do it.

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I know that the member for St Catharines will be very interested in this because my question is to the Minister of Health.

Mr Speaker, I did want to make a small comment here. Frequently this House is presumed to be very adversarial, and in fact it is. But the member for St Catharines has been working very assiduously on this particular issue and working together with my colleagues from Niagara to try to get an upgrading of the kidney dialysis unit at the Hotel Dieu.

I know the minister is fully apprised of the situation. I am not going to go through my entire question but I'm going to ask the minister to update us all on what the situation is at the Hotel Dieu.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): An aggressive group of members from that part of the province.

To the member for St Catharines-Brock and her fellow MPPs in that area who have been constantly reminding me of the need for the ministry to move more quickly on this issue, I'm pleased to give you a very brief update. We have had ongoing discussions with the hospital. The hospital has been made very well aware that it is responsible for the cost of replacing existing equipment, and the ministry does acknowledge that there is a need to move on some of the most pressing issues while the redevelopment study is going on in order to get this kidney dialysis unit up and running.

The ministry and the hospital are this week finalizing the scope of the project and the estimated costs. There will be an announcement, I hope, within a few days.

Ms Haeck: I would like to not only thank, as I already have, the member for St Catharines, but there are a number of other people. One is Jack Leake, who has been a patient spokesperson and very much an advocate on this, besides being a patient.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Don't mention my name or you won't get in the Standard.

Ms Haeck: I'm sorry, Jim, you got in today, so what more did you want?

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): In the Standard?

Ms Haeck: Yes, he actually did get in the Standard; for all of the press gallery, he actually did get in the Standard this week.

Madam Minister, the solution for all of this is $1.2 million and that's what the hospital is really looking for. Are we in any way in the ballpark to actually see this as a solution?

Hon Ms Lankin: I'm going to resist, I think, the request to get into negotiations here on the floor of the Legislature around the actual amount. What we are doing today and in the next couple of days is actually finalizing agreement between the ministry and the hospital about the scope of the project, and what we will do is notify the hospital in writing within the next few days of the final decision with respect to what capital allowance the ministry will put into the project. I will guarantee you at that point in time I'll make sure that copies of that letter are available to you and to the other MPPs in that area whose constituents rely on the services of this kidney dialysis unit at this hospital.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier. It's to do with your standards and your standards of conduct, referring to the letter that you had sent to the Ontario Municipal Board chairman on September 16.

I always believed and I actually thought that you always believed that it was totally inappropriate for the Premier or any cabinet minister to write to the chairman of the Ontario Municipal Board in support of a project, in support of an expedited hearing. I always thought that. Yet on September 16 your executive assistant, acting on your behalf, sent a letter to the chairman of the OMB. This letter spoke both in support of the project and in support of an expedited hearing.

My question is very simple, Premier: Is it now your position that it is acceptable for the Premier's Office to write to the chairman of the OMB indicating your support for a project that is before the OMB and requesting an expedited hearing?

1500

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think I've answered this question on several occasions, when it's been posed to me, as clearly as I possibly can.

Mr Romano wrote the letter. I say to the honourable member that, first of all, the government is directly involved as a partner in the project. It is a project which has the full support of the ministries of the government. In terms of proceeding, it involves an extension of the infrastructure in Metropolitan Toronto which this government has been very supportive of. I might add that previous governments were supportive of the project as well in terms of encouraging it to go ahead with the city of York.

The OMB has a number of issues to deal with with respect to zoning and other questions. It's up to the OMB to determine those, but as I say, with respect to the hearing itself, Mr Kruger, I think, has made it extremely clear that he has full authority to determine when the hearings will take place and on what dates. He certainly understands that the government's position is very clear, as we are, in effect --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the Premier conclude his response, please?

Hon Mr Rae: Together with the city of York and the developers, a number of ministries are parties to the process. The OMB has full carriage of the decision as to when and whether the hearings will be held, and certainly has full carriage with respect to whatever outcome emerges from its decision.

Mr Phillips: Premier, you were wrong to do it. You should simply have said you were wrong. You didn't know it happened; it was wrong. You are defending the indefensible. Every single person in your cabinet knows it's wrong. Every single person in the House knows it's wrong. When you were in opposition, you would have been all over this. You can't write to a quasi-judicial body supporting a project. It has nothing to do with whether the government supports it. You can't write the letter.

I'll just ask the question clearly and simply again: Is it now your standard that it is acceptable for the Premier's office to write to the chairman of the Ontario Municipal Board in support of a project that is before that board for a quasi-judicial decision?

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Romano, who is in my constituency office, wrote a letter with respect to the scheduling of dates for a hearing. Those are the facts.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Burlington South.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): That's wrong. That's a lie.

Interjections.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question is to the Premier. Premier, in your throne speech --

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Jackson: -- you made the unusual statement that your government intended to listen to the concerns --

The Speaker: The member for Burlington South will get his question, because I did recognize him before the disorder. I would ask the member for York Centre if he would withdraw the unparliamentary word which was heard in the chamber, inappropriate language, as he knows.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, the Premier said, "My constituency assistant wrote on a matter of scheduling."

The Speaker: No. Would the member for York Centre take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the member to please take his seat. It's a very straightforward matter. I simply asked the member to withdraw the unparliamentary word which was used, that's all, and I ask the member to do so now.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, I will withdraw that and say that the Premier misrepresented himself in this --

The Speaker: The member for Burlington South with his question. To whom is it directed?

Mr Jackson: To the Premier, again. Premier, in your throne speech you indicated that you were going to be listening to those voices --

Mr Sorbara: -- any court if this is all right.

The Speaker: I ask the member for York Centre to please come to order

Mr Sorbara: Nothing left. Don't do it.

The Speaker: If the member is a cause of disorder, he will have to be named.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I caution the member for York Centre. He is about to be named.

Mr Sorbara: You are counselling interference with a quasi-judicial body.

The Speaker: The member is leaving the Speaker with no recourse but to name him if he refuses to come to order.

The member for Burlington South with his question.

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I only get three shots at this, right, Mr Speaker?

Premier, my question has to do with children's aid society funding. I've been asking you about the issue of your throne speech, where you said you were going to listen to those voices which traditionally haven't been heard by governments and say no to groups that have been speaking too loudly.

Earlier in question period, you questioned why the Conservatives are taking up causes such as children's aid societies, where their deficits this year are in the multimillions of dollars and your government is cutting funding to them. Yet you can find money in the millions and millions of dollars, $97 million to be exact, to build redundant and surplus non-profit day care centres to pursue your ideological program, or $14-some million dollars for the largely symbolic gesture of bilingual road signs.

Why is it then, not as you said in your throne speech, that you're saying no to the vulnerable children who need help and protection under the law and yet you can say yes to these other ideological programs of your government? Where is your sense of priority for the children in this province?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'll refer that to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): This government has a very strong commitment to the children of this province.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Run away.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Bye, Bob.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Bye, Bobby. Little Bobby's going out.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): If everyone's said their goodbyes, perhaps the minister could have the floor to respond.

Hon Mrs Boyd: This government has a very strong commitment to children. It interests me that every time the member talks about children's aid societies, he brings in his own ideology around child care. We believe that child care is an important front-line prevention in terms of children, one that supports the work of children's aid societies because of early identification of problems for children.

The member is well aware of the financial difficulties we face in terms of the constraint measures and how we are working with the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies and all of our children's aid societies to try to deal with the very real constraints they are facing, for the first time in many years. It is very difficult for those communities, very difficult for the volunteer boards of directors, for the staff and for all the children and parents who are served. It is something we are trying to deal with from a community base and within the means the government has, particularly given the cap on the Canada assistance plan, which is creating a lot of our difficulty in providing services for children.

SPEAKER'S RULING

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Last week when you made your ruling in writing, I had requested that you put it in writing because you offer us precedents with respect to going from committee of the whole to the House. There were no precedents outlined in your ruling, and --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the member for Etobicoke West please take his seat. This matter has been dealt with. It is not a matter for debate. If the member is looking for some explanations with respect to the rules, I would invite him to either visit the table, the Clerk's office or indeed my own office. I'd be very pleased to discuss the rules with him.

Mr Stockwell: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: A new point of order?

Mr Stockwell: You never even heard my last one, so I don't know how you'd know if it was new or not.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West is being directed to take his seat. There is nothing out of order.

1510

PETITIONS

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I have a very important petition here, addressed to the Premier of the province that reads as follows:

"Dear Premier:

"As my elected leader I want you to immediately:

"(1) freeze Ontario Hydro rates;

"(2) stop costly Ontario Hydro megaprojects, massive dams, transformer and generating stations and lengthy transmission lines and promote the implementation of cogeneration, NUGs, energy conservation etc;

"(3) cancel all current Ontario Hydro environmental assessment hearings; and,

"(4) promote economic and social accountability by permitting competition to offer an alternative to the monopoly now held by Ontario Hydro."

This has been signed by 10,000 persons.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): I have here a petition to the members of provincial Parliament.

"We, the undersigned, hereby register our opposition in the strongest terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and will cause increased hardship to many families.

"The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

This petition is signed by members from the Cambridge area and I have attached my name to the petition.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

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

It's signed by 66 residents of Middlesex county and I've affixed my signature.

SPEAKER'S RULING

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The point of order I'm making to you -- before you rule me out of order, I would just like to make it. The point of order is: When I ask you to provide in writing some precedents for the decision of moving from committee of the whole to the House and then back to committee of the whole, you undertook that and you said you'd get back to this House in writing.

Upon reading your ruling, you provided no precedent as to history about going from the House, after 6 pm, back into the committee of the whole. I ask you, Mr Speaker, was that simply because -- and you can respond now or in writing or choose not to; it's your decision as the Speaker -- there isn't any precedent or is it simply because you didn't have time to review it through the books?

I'm asking very specifically, is there any precedent which provided the decision that you made that moved this House back to the committee of the whole after 6 o'clock?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Etobicoke West, the member tries the patience of the Speaker greatly, but I will --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the member to take his seat. A point of order was raised. A ruling on the point of order was provided. If the member wishes information with respect to procedure, precedents or anything else related to a ruling, he is more than welcome to visit my office or the office of the Clerk or to indeed visit the table officers.

I cannot nor should I do more than that because what the member is really doing, indirectly, which he knows he cannot do directly, is to challenge a ruling that was made.

GAMBLING

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I have a petition to members of the provincial Parliament of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, hereby register our opposition in the strongest of terms to the proposal to establish and license a permanent gambling enterprise in the Niagara Peninsula.

"We believe in the need of keeping this area as a place where family and holiday time will be enriched with quality of life. Such gaming establishments will be detrimental to the fabric of the society in Ontario and in the Niagara region in particular.

"We believe that licensed gambling will cause increased hardship on many families and will be an invitation for more criminal activities.

"By our signatures here attached, we ask you to not license gambling anywhere in the Niagara Peninsula."

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have one from Carleton United Church in St Catharines, Ontario, regarding an amendment to the Retail Business Holidays Act, promised wide-open Sunday shopping and the elimination of Sunday as a legal holiday.

It reads as follows:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on many families.

"The amendments included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I agree with the petition of the parishioners of Carleton United Church and affix my signature to it indicating that agreement.

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition signed by some 50 people from Ontario. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP government is considering legalizing casinos and video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the abovementioned implementations,

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

"That the government stop looking to casinos and video lottery terminals as a 'quick-fix' solution to its fiscal problems and concentrate instead on eliminating wasteful government spending."

I agree with this petition, and I have signed it.

ABORTION

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): I have a petition sent to me by Florence Vanden-Ende, the president of Cambridge Right to Life. The petition is as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas children are our most valuable resource and our only link with the future; and

"Whereas the destruction of pre-born babies is against natural and divine law;

"We, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop funding abortions, to give expectant mothers pertinent information, to assist women with problem pregnancies through their pregnancy to the birth of their baby, and to promote chastity among young people."

I have attached my signature to this petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition signed by 60 residents of my community. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and the Lieutenant Governor:

"We, the undersigned, hereby register our opposition to wide-open Sunday business.

"We believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on retailers, retail employees and their families.

"The proposed amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I have signed my name to this.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition here signed by 33 residents of the county of Middlesex who respectfully ask the members of the Legislative Assembly "to set aside the report by arbitrator John Brant in connection with the greater London area arbitration because it does not reflect the expressed wishes of the majority. It awards too extensive an area of annexation to the city of London. It will jeopardize agricultural land, the viability of the county of Middlesex and our rural way of life."

I have signed my name to this petition.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads:

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

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

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

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

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

This is a petition that's been signed by thousands of workers in this province, and I affix my signature to it.

1520

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION RULING

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): This petition comes from the Catholic Women's League of St Ambrose parish in Cambridge and has been forwarded by the convener, Annalee Steden.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the Ontario Human Rights Commission, in its September 1 ruling, extended full family and bereavement benefits to same-sex arrangements; and

"Whereas this is believed by Catholic women as detrimental to family and society;

"We, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Honourable Howard Hampton, Attorney General of the province of Ontario, to appeal this ruling of the Human Rights Commission."

It is signed by several hundred members and constituents, and I've attached my name to this petition.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a new petition on market value which I think very clearly states the position of the city of Toronto:

"To the Legislative of Ontario:

"Whereas Metro Toronto council has passed an ill-conceived plan to bring in market value assessment, in spite of the solid opposition of the city of Toronto; and

"Whereas we believe market value as a basis for property tax assessment in a volatile market such as Metro Toronto is the wrong tax, at the wrong time, in the wrong place; and

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

"Whereas if the province changes legislation to deny the city of Toronto the right to determine our own method of property tax reform, Toronto home owners, tenants and businesses will in future be left to the mercy of regional government; and

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

"Whereas city of Toronto residents account for 29% of Metro's population, but Toronto taxpayers foot 40% of Metro's bills;

"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 allow each local municipality in Metro Toronto the autonomy to determine our own method of property tax reform in our own municipality."

I will be signing this because I totally agree with these sentiments.

LAYOFFS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition signed by several Ontario residents. It reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

I happen to agree with this petition. I affix my signature to it, showing my agreement.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Metro Toronto council has passed an ill-conceived plan to bring in market value assessment, in spite of the solid opposition of the city of Toronto; and

"Whereas we believe market value as a basis for property tax assessment in a volatile market such as Metro Toronto is the wrong tax, at the wrong time, in the wrong place; and

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

"Whereas if the province changes legislation to deny the city of Toronto the right to determine their own method of property tax reform, Toronto home owners, tenants and businesses will in future be left to the mercy of regional governments; and

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

"Whereas city of Toronto residents account for 29% of Metro's population, but Toronto taxpayers foot 40% of Metro's bills;

"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 allow each local municipality in Metro Toronto the autonomy to determine our own method of property tax reform in our own municipality."

I will sign this because I fully agree with its sentiments.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

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

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr49, An Act to revive Eilpro Holdings Inc

Your committee begs to report the following bills as amended:

Bill Pr3, An Act respecting the City of Burlington

Bill Pr19, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed? Agreed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Runciman from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 17th report.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Pursuant to standing order 106(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT,1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DES LOTERIES DE L'ONTARIO

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

Bill 92, An Act to amend the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Société des loteries de l'Ontario

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Does the honourable member wish to make a few comments?

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I'd just like to point out to members of the House that this bill amends the Ontario Lottery Corp Act by prohibiting the sale of lottery tickets to minors. A contravention of the bill would result in the revocation of the authorization to sell lottery tickets. It arises out of concern in the community about the new Pro-Line lottery from Sport Select, where children, young people, have the opportunity and have full access in their retailers and their corner stores to actually bet on sporting events, usually played on the weekend and including Monday night football.

It's my hope that if the House were to proceed with this act, it would put in place a law that would prohibit the sale of all lottery tickets, not just this one, to anyone under the age of 18 and would result in the offending party, if they were to sell lottery tickets to young people, losing their licence.

I would hope that this House would support speedy approval of second and third reading on that particular piece of legislation.

1530

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

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Mr Mackenzie has moved third reading of Bill 40, An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Collective Bargaining and Employment. Does the honourable minister have a few remarks? Oh, the parliamentary assistant --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The minister may have some remarks, but the parliamentary assistant may not have some remarks. I ask that the member for Mississauga North now be heard.

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

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would just like to say that I believe we have unanimous consent to divide the time up evenly. Is that not correct?

Mr Elston: We do.

Ms Murdock: Okay. Well, that has to be cleared, Mr Elston.

The Acting Speaker: Let me just clarify the situation, because there is some confusion in the House. The minister actually moving the motion counts as a presentation from that side of the House and therefore, according to the standing orders, we have to move in rotation to the honourable member for the opposition. So I recognize the honourable member for Mississauga North.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: First, I understand there has been unanimous agreement to equalize the time. That's the only point I wanted to make.

The Acting Speaker: Is it agreed among the three parties that the time is split? I believe that agreement was reached. For just today, or for both days?

Ms Murdock: For both days.

Mr Elston: For today.

The Acting Speaker: Okay, I hear there's unanimous agreement for one day. If that is so, then there is unanimous agreement for today, and I'd ask the honourable member for Mississauga North to begin.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): The third reading of this particular bill has gotten off to a rocky start, but that's quite typical of this bill, which is about how this bill particularly started. I know the time allocation motion by the government is, without question, drawing this bill to an end, and it's drawing this bill to an end notwithstanding some very serious and deep concerns by a variety of individuals throughout this province.

I believe the process the government has used in bringing this bill forward is one which is, in a word, reprehensible. It is reprehensible because of the fact that they sought, after the introduction of this bill on June 4 of this year, 90 minutes later, to introduce new rules of procedure.

Those rules of procedure did nothing less than grease the procedure in which this bill will become law. It shut down debate; it curtailed public hearings in a committee; it shut the door on hundreds and hundreds of groups and associations that wished to be heard on this bill, representing hundreds of thousands of Ontario citizens.

I have said it before and I'll say it again: The legacy of this bill will be one of shutting the door on people with concerns about how their province is to grow, how their province is to respect the rights of individuals throughout this province. For that, it is one which I believe the government will have to defend, and I believe it is indefensible.

I will address my comments today to some of the substantive concerns which I and my party have with respect to this bill and which we have brought forward on a number of occasions. It is unfortunate that, notwithstanding the concerns brought forward not only by our party but by many other people in this province, the government has continually refused to listen. They have continually refused to listen to people who are concerned about the actions of a government which has repealed the preamble of the Labour Relations Act of Ontario. I think, for those watching, they should be well aware as to what the preamble of the current Ontario Labour Relations Act states:

"Whereas it is in the public interest of the province of Ontario to further harmonious relations between employers and employees by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions as the freely designated representatives of employees."

That is the preamble to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. It is a preamble that speaks about cooperation; it is a preamble that speaks about a public interest to further harmonious relations between employers and employees, and it is a preamble that the NDP government has repealed.

No longer in the province of Ontario will this preamble, which set the stage for a balance of interests, which set the stage for a framework and a principle for employers and employees to discuss their issues of mutual concern, be the guiding principle in labour relations in Ontario.

What has the government sought to put in its stead? Nothing. There is no a longer a preamble to this bill. There is no longer a series of principles which will go through the bill. There is no longer that stream of understanding, cooperation and harmony which has always been the hallmark of the Labour Relations Act of Ontario, and for that this government is once more in an indefensible position.

I move to the area where the government has again turned its back on so many individuals, and that is the need for an economic impact analysis. That's not a business argument. The government would want to have you believe that that is somehow an argument that only business puts forward. As the Labour critic for our party, I have received concerns not just from the business community -- though without question I have received concerns from business groups and associations -- but from employees, workers in this province who are very concerned that the job they have today will be there tomorrow. They wanted the government to conduct an economic impact statement. They wanted the government to take a look at these changes with a view to seeing what impact it will have on our agricultural sector.

I've spoken earlier on about the changes that are being made to the agricultural sector. They want to know what the changes will be to the manufacturing sector, what the impact of these changes will be on the retail sector, on the service sector, on the small, medium and large business sectors of this province. It isn't just the so-called business community that wants that; it's the workers within those groups who want that. They want to know. They want to be aware. They want to be confident that this bill and these changes will not have an effect on investment, job creation and job security.

From day one, the government has failed to deal with what I believe is a paramount responsibility. In this era of competition, not to go through an economic statement, an impact analysis as to what this bill will mean in the area of jobs and investment is irresponsible. It is irresponsible to the many hundreds of thousands of people who find themselves without a job. It is irresponsible to the many workers in this province who are afraid of whether their job today will be there tomorrow.

It is an issue which has been brought forward time and time again by people across this province saying that it is the responsibility of governments to know what the impact of legislation is going to be, not only before they introduce it into the legislation but before they pass it into law. It is irresponsible to the 500,000-odd workers who are out of work, many for the very first time in their lives. They were asking, pleading with the government, "Before you move forward on a bill of this kind, know what its impact is; know what it means when you speak about these different provisions." To this date, and as we move to the last hours of this bill, the government has continually turned its back on that.

Again, it is indefensible of this government not to have conducted an economic impact statement. It is indefensible for this government to have repealed a preamble which spoke about harmony, consultation and consensus in labour-management relations. It is indefensible that the government seeks to introduce and pass into law a bill which takes away the rights of workers in this province.

I have said this on earlier occasions. I, as the Labour critic for our party, brought forward this matter in the committee stage. This is a bill in a variety of areas which, far from protecting and enhancing the rights of workers in this province, takes away from the rights of workers in this province.

I've spoken about what it means that in an organizing drive a worker be informed as to what his or her rights are under the Labour Relations Act. This bill does not do that. This bill is silent on informing the worker as to what his or her rights will be. When we brought forward amendments which would make it mandatory, which would make it compulsory for workers to be apprised of what their rights are under the Labour Relations Act, the government voted down that provision.

1540

When we brought forward amendments which would make it mandatory, which would make it compulsory for workers to be apprised of what their rights are under the Labour Relations Act, the government voted down that provision.

When we brought forward amendments with respect to communication between workers in an organizing drive, that no communication should be made unless it is, firstly, with the approval of the Labour Relations Board and, secondly, in the presence of a member of the Labour Relations Board so that a worker would not have to feel any intimidation or coercion, the government again voted that down.

When we sought to reduce the threshold needed for a secret ballot vote, when we sought to reduce the threshold from 40% to 30% as the trigger point in order to have a secret ballot vote, the government voted it down.

They voted down giving to the workers of this province the right to decide, democratically, free from intimidation and coercion, the way in which they want their workplace governed.

This is not a bill, as I've said many times, whether one is in favour of or opposed to unionization. This is a bill which I believe must give to workers the democratic right to choose how their workplace is to be governed, and this bill does not.

We sought to introduce amendments that would bring that forward in this bill and in the Labour Relations Act. When those amendments were brought forward, when we brought forward amendments that dealt with giving the right to workers to decide democratically whether they do or do not wish to be unionized, and to do so by a majority, and to do so free of intimidation and coercion, and to do so with full knowledge as to what their rights are under the Labour Relations Act of the province of Ontario, the government voted it down.

This is a bill which does not protect the rights of workers. It is a bill which takes away the rights of workers. It's a bill which I believe attacks the rights of individuals and workers on another front, because I do not want to leave this bill without discussing my concerns with the replacement worker prohibition. The Ministry of Labour's own statistics say that the replacement incidence in strikes is very low, but yet they have brought forward a prohibition for replacement workers. In other words, if there is a strike, replacement workers cannot be brought in.

There are those on the government side who will want, I'm sure, to vote in favour of that, but we have to ask ourselves this question: I do not, and my party does not, deny the right of workers to associate to join a union of their choice and, yes, within the bounds of law to strike, but if we can agree and accept those rights and principles, then why can we not also accept the right of employers to attempt as best they can to keep their business operating? Why does one right necessarily have to exclude another right?

I do not believe it does. I believe that both rights can be embraced under the law, but the government has sought to cut out the rights of one over the rights of another. It is in this area which I would hope the government members would recognize the concerns were not just heard from the business community. Yes, concerns were heard by a variety of individuals representing business interests. They did come before the committee and expressed to the members what they felt the impact of that would be.

It wasn't just the business community that brought forward those concerns. Representatives from the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies brought their concerns forward on what this prohibition will mean to them in carrying out their responsibilities, which are to act in the best interests of children. They said that this prohibition will affect them. It will affect them and their ability to intake children, to assess children, to supervise visitations of children. For that reason, this government should have said, "The impact of the bill is one which is a far-reaching effect which we cannot support," but they turned their back on the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies.

School boards came before the committee and said, "Look at what the impact will be on school bus operators and children in the event that there is a strike of school bus operators." There are many communities in which the only way children get to school is through the school bus. The parents can't take their children; they can't pick them up; they can't provide the safety and security that is necessary. What did the government do when that matter was brought forward? They turned their backs on that issue, and I believe it is one which again strikes against the prohibition of replacement workers.

When municipalities came forward and expressed concerns about the prohibition of replacement workers; when gas companies came forward; when professional engineers came forward; when Hydro came forward; when a variety of individuals, who I would expect are not categorized by the government in the so-called business community, came forward with serious and severe concerns about what the impact of replacement worker prohibition would mean to them, the government turned its back.

The government steadfastly moved to make this bill law without any appreciation as to what the impact is going to be on our children, on the users of hydro services in this province, on the users of gas utilities in this province, on any resident who resides in a municipality in this province. For some ideological reason, they steadfastly move forward when all evidence shows that the impact is going to be something for which you are going to rue the day.

You are going to look back at this day and tomorrow and say, "Why didn't we know?" The fact of the matter is, you did know. These people did come before the committee. They knew that the process was shortened by your dictatorial rules of procedure, that all those who wished to have been heard could not be heard. They knew we were operating under what is called a time allocation motion, whereby each member in this Legislature would not be given the right to fully debate this issue, but they did come forward and, in the shortened time that was allotted to them, did bring forward these concerns.

It will not be an answer by the government to say, "We didn't realize what the impact of this matter would be." The business community, the social agencies of this province, have said, "Do not move forward with this bill until you know the impact of the bill," but the government, for some reason, some ideological purpose, blind to the fact of the competitive demands of the day, continued to move forward. I believe that's not in the best interests of the workers of this province. I do not believe it is in the best interests of the future prosperity of this province. I do not believe it is in the best interests of our children and our children's children in this province.

In the replacement worker provision -- I must touch upon this point before moving on -- currently under the Labour Relations Act of the province of Ontario, a worker who is on strike has the right to return to work during that strike. A worker, looking at his own situation, his own needs, his own family requirements, has the right to return. Under the current Ontario Labour Relations Act, the employer must hire that person back even during a strike: an important protection for workers.

This government has repealed that section. No longer in the province of Ontario, during a strike, will a worker, after taking a look at what his or her needs will be, have the right to return to his or her job. No longer will they have that right, and that I feel is another example of taking away from the rights of workers in this province. It is something which I believe is indefensible. The government cannot defend taking away the right of workers to return to work during a strike, looking at their own families, deciding what is in the best interests of them and making, yes, a difficult decision, but making a decision. The government has no business taking away that right. You have no business taking away the opportunity of a worker to meet the needs of his or her own family. You have taken away that right. You have taken away the right of a worker to say, "My family has certain needs and I want to be able to make what is a difficult decision, but make the decision nevertheless." You took it away under the Labour Relations Act.

1550

When people came before the committee, no matter how shortened those hearings were, and said, "You have no right to do that. We do not care what your ideological basis is. You don't have the right to take that away," the government members turned their backs on those workers. They turned their backs on the part-time and full-time workers of this province who feel they should have the right to dictate how their workplace is to be governed. You took away their rights. You took away their rights during a strike; you took away their rights during an organizing drive; you took away their rights as to how the workplace is to be governed.

I'll tell you another thing: You did so while sending out the negative message as to whether this is a province where you should invest. So you will have to live with this. You will have to live with the fact that the message you have sent is totally negative: that this is not a province to invest, that it is not a province where an existing company should expand, where new jobs should be created or where existing jobs should be secured.

I heard from a great many people, not just the business community, but none the less the business community; not just the big business community, but many people who are within what is called the small business sector. They had concerns. The government turned their backs. They turned their backs in repealing a preamble which has served this province well, which has built a balance, labour and management, which has been a foundation for building this province, for creating jobs and creating wealth. They turned their backs on workers' rights.

There is no one on the government side who can say in any way that Bill 40 increases workers' rights, protects workers' rights or enhances workers' rights. You took away from businesses -- yes, let's say that -- that are trying to compete in a global economy, that recognize that competition is not just somebody located around the corner but rather is people over the horizon, you took away their rights, because you know as well as I that when this bill becomes law, we will have the only jurisdiction in North America with laws of this kind. You have to ask yourself, is it worth taking away the rights of workers, is it worth putting businesses in a less competitive stage, to meet some ideological basis, ideological finding, ideological principle that is going to harm the future of this province? I think not.

I have spoken on a number of occasions, not only within this chamber but outside, on this bill. I spoke in opposition to the bill. I and my party will be voting against the bill. We will be voting against the bill because of what it takes away from workers. We will be voting against this bill as to what it does to businesses' competitive edge in this province. We will be voting against this bill because of the fact that I believe it will result in a loss of investment, that it will result in an attack on new job creation, that it will erode the security of existing jobs, and that the jobs that are here today may not be there tomorrow.

For those who speak to the "hysterical" response by others in opposition to the bill, let me say this: There were many people who came before the committee who spoke in opposition to the bill. They did not speak in opposition to changes to the Labour Relations Act, but they did say that if change is to occur, then surely it must be accomplished in a cooperative, consensual manner. I believe that can be done.

I believe this bill and the Labour Relations Act must be changed. Changes are necessary to ensure that workers have the democratic right to choose as to how their workplace is to be governed. This bill and this act must be changed in order to send out a positive message, to restore the positive climate of investment in this province, to change this bill to make certain that new jobs are created and existing jobs are secured, and that changes must be made in a way where management and labour and government work together.

Bill 40 and the process the government has undertaken is one which has divided. It has created a polarity of interests where wounds have been created which will take years to heal. The actions of the government, the actions of the Premier of the province and the actions of the Minister of Labour from day one have sought to create two sides and to build a distance between those sides.

I believe that is something which is not in the best interests of the province of Ontario, it's not in the best interests of the workers of Ontario and it's not in the best interests of the future of this province. I and my party will be voting against this bill. We'll be voting against what this bill has taken away from workers, what this bill has taken away from the business community. We'll be voting against this bill because of the process of division and conflict and polarization that the government has used in bringing this bill forward.

This is a bill which I believe is not in the best interests of the people in this province and is not in the best interests of the workers in this province. It is not in the best interests of the future prosperity of this province.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The honourable member for Nipissing.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Thanks, Mr Speaker; I appreciate the opportunity. I would like to request, and I believe there's been some discussion, unanimous consent to have our lead speaker on this, our critic for the Ministry of Labour, deferred until tomorrow.

The Acting Speaker: I just want to say to the honourable member for Nipissing that there was unanimous consent that we split the time three ways. So whoever the third party would wish to speak at this point is quite acceptable to the House.

Mr Harris: That's fine, Mr Speaker, as long as my whip is satisfied that Ms Witmer, our critic, will have more than half an hour to speak -- which would be contrary to the rules regardless of the time allocation. If I could have unanimous consent that the understanding is that, then under the time allocation that would be fine.

The Acting Speaker: I'd say to the honourable member, to clarify that, the unanimous agreement that was made in the House was made on the basis of this day only and did not include the second day.

Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Contrary to what you just told me, the table has indicated that we can split the time any way we see fit. I believe the Minister of Labour plans to do the same thing. Tomorrow, then, Ms Witmer can take whatever amount of time is required.

1600

I will not be very long. I spoke at some length yesterday, as members in the chamber will recall. I've spoken at great length on this issue on a number of occasions. After the motion that I brought forward yesterday to defer Bill 40, to ask the government to withdraw it, to not proceed, I regret, of course, very much that my motion yesterday did not carry and that the advice I proffered yesterday in this Legislature was not taken.

I perhaps naïvely had expected that the Premier, as he heads off to Asia and to various countries, would want to take something with him, would want to have something to sell. I can think of absolutely nothing that would better have sent out a signal to potential investors, to potential entrepreneurs and companies around the world that Ontario is open for business than to say: "We have scrapped Bill 40. We will not proceed unilaterally with the labour position over the objection of what should be an equal partner in this, management or investors or owners or entrepreneurs or the risk-takers. We will sit down and work on a 50-50, equal basis until we can come up with agreement as to what will work and make sense." So I regret, actually, that I'm on my feet today and I regret that we're dealing with third reading of this legislation today.

I don't want to, as I indicated, dwell at great length. I've made my points before. I've talked about this legislation, as you will recall, that it will kill jobs. It's job-killing legislation just as sure as I'm standing here. It's the motive I talked about yesterday: This is payback time to the vested interests. These are the ones that financed and put the workers out on the streets to elect the Minister of Labour and elect the Premier and elect this government. This is what they seem to want, regardless of the fact that it will kill jobs, regardless of the fact that it takes away the democratic rights, in perpetuity, of workers, of working men and women. I really regret that.

I talked yesterday about the tragedy of the confrontation that it is creating. It's ironic, a piece of legislation that the Premier, the Minister of Labour and members of the cabinet of this NDP government all say the reason for is to bring business and labour together, get them working together, that this must happen, that management and workers must form a new partnership, new alliances in the future if we are to be successful. Of course, I'm saying the same thing, if we are going to catch up to the Europeans, to Germany, to Japan, to some of the other countries that have learned how to bring together workers and owners, management and representatives of workers, unions, bring them together to make sure that you can get a pie before you cut it and figure out who gets what piece of the pie.

I want to mention now -- some will think it's a little out of context -- that in many of Frank Stronach's companies certainly, I'm sure, a number of the unions will want to get the revenue generated if they can unionize Magna or some of the Magna factories and plants.

There is a good example of how management, ownership and workers have come together and agreed how they will share the pie. So that's not at issue. In fact, the owners cannot change that formula without the agreement of the workers, and having simply come together and set out that structure, they then are working together.

Of course, it's a huge success story, even within the confrontational framework of unions today, particularly in North America, and how dramatically different our unions are than European unions and Japanese unions, Asian unions. They're 20 years behind in Canada and North America in trying to think that the issue is who has more power, where in other jurisdictions they've set aside the issue of who has how much power and they work together for the benefit of the company, the workers, the families, their communities and, of course, their provinces.

I really regret that the government has decided to proceed. I find it ironic, too, and really sad, which perhaps is the right word, that the Premier, if he's to be believed -- and I guess one should try to do that; it's difficult these days -- says he's going to Asia to tell them that he's proceeding with Bill 40, to tell them that he's proceeding to give more power to unions, to tell them that this miraculous new law is coming into place in Ontario. This is what the Premier tells me is one of the reasons for his trip.

In Sault Ste Marie he spoke and said, "The key to economic renewal in Ontario is Bill 40, this labour legislation, giving more power to the unions." So if he is to be believed, he thinks this is what Asian investors want to hear. He is so out of touch with what is going on around the world, so out of touch with investors and potential investors anywhere in the world. This is the last thing they want to hear.

If he wanted to take good news, he'd say: "We've rethought our position. We're going to wait until we can get agreement, come together in a tripartite way." But he actually seems to think that by telling them he's jamming this down the throats of investors and business and one of the key partners in the framework, they're going to want to hear that.

I have spoken to people who are doing business all around the world, to consultants, to entrepreneurs, to investors, to international companies. They couldn't believe it when our Premier went to Japan -- I don't know whether it was six or eight months ago -- and gave a whole speech about the labour legislation. Several representatives of this one company were there and they talked afterwards, and to a person, in that audience he spoke to, they were distressed, were less likely to invest in Ontario. They couldn't believe it was happening, couldn't believe the Premier was so stupid to tell them.

I say to you, Mr Speaker, and I say to the Premier -- I guess he's gone. I think he's winged his way off for 16 days. Perhaps the combination of the police and market value assessment was too much for him, so he just decided to flee the problems and leave them behind. Perhaps that's why he left. Perhaps that's why he's not here today. Perhaps that's why he decided to leave the province.

I very, very much regret it, and I am saddened for the workers of this province, saddened for the working men and women. There was a comment, and I don't always agree with Jean Chrétien, but Jean Chrétien said -- and I won't phrase it exactly -- that there's nothing more nervous than $1 million. I believe I may be paraphrasing a little bit, but I think you understand. There's nothing more nervous than $1 million.

As we all know, capital, as many have pointed out, can leave like that, so the investors will not be hurt. They can invest in other provinces, in other countries, in other jurisdictions. They will not be hurt; it is the workers, those who will lose their jobs, those who will not have the jobs as this restructuring is going on all around us while this government seems to be sitting back and just watching it.

A lot of the traditional jobs are disappearing. The new ones are emerging and they're coming forward. The restructuring is taking place, but the new jobs aren't coming in Ontario. Yes, there are a few. In spite of government, there are a few. There are some that can't leave. There are some that are so committed to this province and this country that they're saying even though it's unprofitable and it's really a dumb economic decision, they're going to go ahead anyway. We understand that.

1610

Some of them are saying, "We don't think Bob Rae will be the government two years from now. There will be politicians with courage to scrap this nonsense, so we'll take a chance that is the case." I think it's a 100% sure thing. I tell them that, and that's how I encourage them to invest in spite of this government and its policies.

But I feel sorry; I really do. I feel sorry for the workers, I feel sorry for their families, I feel sorry for their children, because they're being hurt today and they're being hurt tomorrow with this legislation. Their future will not be as bright as it could have been had this government taken a cooperative approach in looking at any changes to the Labour Relations Act in the context of how you truly get management and labour working together.

In spite of the babblings and natterings from the backbenchers that the Premier has found a way to control, we will oppose this legislation. We will vote against it on third reading. In doing so we send a signal out to working men and women in this province that there will be hope, that there will be a future, that there will be a day when this province will rise from the depths it has sunk to under this administration, from the depths it has sunk to over the past seven years. It has moved in the wrong direction. But we will bring common sense and sound management back to this province. If they can survive until 1995, they will have a future. They will have a future and a hope and their dreams can be fulfilled.

It may appear bleak and black today, but I believe there will be hope in the future, when we get sound management, common-sense management that will repeal nonsensical legislation like Bill 40, along with a few other things the government is doing, and give the dream back to the people of this province.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): This has been a long time coming, the first day of third reading debate. There are two days under the time motion on this. I must admit that today being November 4 -- it is five months to the day since this bill was introduced into the House -- brings up the whole point of process, which the Liberal critic has raised time and again, both in the committee and in the House, and I want to speak to process this afternoon.

Much has been made of the consultation process. From the opposition's point of view, of course, it has said there hasn't been any. I want to attest to the fact that I have spent 22 months out of my life on Bill 40, and lately -- I would say in the last six months -- almost exclusively on Bill 40. I want to start off with when this all began, which was in January 1991.

We're talking almost two years ago when that committee was put together. It has been described as a committee that was unable to work together. We had a labour side and a management side, and in April 1991, we came up with two different reports. The labour report came out first. Of course that is what hit the media, and since that day in April we have had nothing but consultation, discussion and information overload on Bill 40.

Right away, from the time that labour report was put out to the press, there were meetings with the minister, with the deputy minister, both in my office and upstairs. There were consultations in our ridings. Many of our members were having meetings within their own constituencies. All of that occurred from April, and in June the press really made it a big issue. All that time our ministry staff were trying to put together a discussion paper.

In November we came up with the proposed reforms, many of which had been significantly reduced from the wish list of the labour side. We came up with 47 proposals with all kinds of opportunities for discussion and consultation, and we continued to have meetings at our ministry with the minister, the deputy minister, myself, as well as all of our staff.

That's one year ago that this discussion paper came out, almost to the day; in fact, I believe it was November 5 last year. Still the opposition claims we have not consulted and we have not discussed. That is just not factual, because for one year this discussion paper has been out, with all of the suggestions we would like to have seen in the amendments to the Labour Relations Act. As a consequence of what we heard during the consultations that Minister Mackenzie and I went out to in January and February, we changed those from the discussion paper significantly into the draft legislation. It just proved that we listened.

The draft legislation, through our ministry, was devised of course, at the same time still having meetings at our ministry, still meeting with the minister, still meeting with the deputy minister, still meeting in my office, plus constituency meetings. In the meantime Mr Mackenzie and I were travelling at every opportunity and at every request, to appear and speak about this bill and again ask people what their thoughts and concerns were.

First reading was June 4; there's no question of that. I would point out that none of this has been done in isolation. If you think about it, from the day the labour report from the Burkett committee came out, we have had nothing but letters to the editors, editorials, columns, there have been TV shows, local forums -- you name it. This has been one of the most publicly debated and discussed pieces of legislation in the past 22 months that anyone could possibly imagine. It even beats Bill 162, which I personally thought was a major complicated piece of legislation that we in opposition did not like.

This has not been a quiet issue. Anyone who has been paying any attention to the media, or to this House, in terms of the delays occurring around here, would see that this bill has certainly been a catalyst.

Through it all, we have made changes. When we finally got into the clause-by-clause portion, which under the time allocation rule we spent eight days on, there were a couple of changes. But admittedly, by that time, after almost two years, we had pretty well put the bill as to what we wanted to see in the amendments to the Labour Relations Act.

Yesterday was opposition day here, as everyone knows, and the third party raised it. It was an opposition that, should they become the government of this province after the next election, they would repeal Bill 40. What really was surprising was that the official opposition in this House supported this opposition day resolution. I would say to the members of the Liberal Party that each of them are going to have to answer to their constituents when they are asked why, number one, they were voting to repeal a bill that would be good for the workers of this province, for minority groups and women, part-time workers especially; and second, why they would agree to even think about a Progressive Conservative government after the next election. It doesn't speak well for their ambitions, that's for sure.

Then we get into the whole concept of repealing this bill. I think anybody who makes that kind of statement is dreaming in Technicolor, because the reality is a complete other issue. I'm sure the public out there don't realize that Bill 40 is amendments to an existing act, and that when this bill passes -- and it will pass -- it will be incorporated into the act and those sections will go into the existing Ontario Labour Relations Act.

What will happen then is that for two and a half years, while we remain the government of this province, and for the ensuing four years, this bill will stay in place and be workable. People will -- surprise -- find out that it is not the ogre we have been hearing from the business community -- some of the coalitions, not all of the business community, thank God, but some of the people who have been tossing out rhetoric like it was two-cent candy.

1620

The reality is that once a bill has been enacted, is working and in place, to change that and to pull out pieces of it two and a half or seven years later and try to repeal this bill will be an impossibility. I speak with experience on that, because if I had had my way, upon forming the government in September 1990 I would have repealed Bill 162. It was a bill that really bothered us, but once it's in place, you just can't do it. That's why I say that anyone who says he's going to repeal this bill is not living in the real world.

Today there was an article by Thomas Walkom about Bill 40, "More Heat Than Light in Labour Law Debate." He talks about much of the rhetoric that has been going on. He's surprised by the fact that the business community went for some of the comments that were made, to take a limited issue of industrial legislation as a matter of life and death, that this bill alone and by itself is going to destroy the investment in Ontario, that this bill alone and by itself is going to close down companies and cause them to move.

Yesterday, the member for Welland-Thorold was mentioning companies that were closing down and were opting to move elsewhere -- not because of Bill 40; in fact, Bill 40 isn't even law yet. They were moving for other kinds of reasons: GST, free trade, the dollar, interest rates. Those are the reasons they were moving, long before the New Democrats became the government, which we hear constantly from the other side as the reason for this province suddenly, in two years, falling apart. If it was organized that well prior to our arrival on the scene, then it shouldn't fall apart so quickly.

Impact studies are something that the opposition, particularly the Liberal critic, have mentioned quite often in terms of their not being done. The member for Mississauga West, I believe, commented yesterday that he couldn't believe, was absolutely incredulous, that my minister would state in a letter that he didn't know what the impact of this bill would be on particular industries. Well, that was part of the whole problem with this, and we've stated this time and again, that it is difficult when you can't make a determination -- and there is no way to make a determination under this legislation -- of how many people will choose to organize after this bill is passed.

Right now in the province of Ontario, 70% of all workers can organize if they want to. Part-time workers can organize if they want to right now. There are all kinds of options for people to organize. Out of that 70% of those workers, only 30% have opted to do so. The expectation is that when Bill 40 is passed, what will happen is that it will increase the number of workers who are eligible to organize up to about 90% of the workers in the province of Ontario. Based on past history, it would probably indicate that we might be able to get 35% or 40% of our working people organized, and that's with concerted efforts in an expensive system.

I think what was missed in the comments from the member for Mississauga West yesterday was that yes, my minister made that statement because we can't make the determination. We don't know how many people are going to organize, and he was honest and forthright about it. I notice that that characterization was not applied to the minister's statements, and I would like to point out that it is with honesty and forthrightness that Minister Mackenzie has looked at the impact studies.

The other thing in terms of the studies that have been done and that are being used -- figures are being tossed out there: 295,000 jobs lost. Well, when you ask 300 or so corporate executives, "Do you want the labour legislation law changed?" it comes as no surprise for them to say no. It comes as no surprise that they would have very negative views about any changes to the status quo. It doesn't matter what survey you put out there; who is being asked the question is really important as to what kind of an answer you're going to get.

It is a shame that the advertising campaigns that have been put out there are so negative. But in actual fact, I thank them for spending their millions of dollars in doing that. They could have used those millions of dollars to train people more effectively. They could have used those millions of dollars, instead of putting up billboards across the province, for health and safety measures in the workplace. But they opted instead to try to defeat this government, and frankly, they have been so strong in their rhetoric and so negative in their rhetoric that they have lost the battle.

If we never found out before whether or not negative language and negative advertising and negative campaigning were going to do any kind of good, all you have to do is look at the referendum results, number one, and look at the Clinton win yesterday and George Bush's loss. So I would say that I thank them, actually, for coming out so strongly on the negative side.

Bill 40 will not dramatically change the workplaces in Ontario, and it certainly won't change anything overnight. When this bill passes in this House -- and I will very proudly stand up in the House and nod my head to you, Mr Speaker -- I will be leading the cheer and proudly going out and saying to all of the workers in this province that we have passed a flagship of a bill, and I am proud to be associated with it.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate.

Mr Elston: I am going to be very short.

In accordance with my notice of motion printed on the Orders and Notices paper on page 26, I move that Bill 40, An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Collective Bargaining and Employment, be not now read a third time but be returned to the standing committee on resources development to allow committee members to debate all the amendments that were deemed to have been read but were never discussed, because the bill is fundamentally defective in principle. October 29, 1992.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Elston has moved a reasoned amendment that Bill 40, An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Collective Bargaining and Employment --

Interjection: Dispense.

The Acting Speaker: It's dispensed. Does the honourable member have any comments to make?

Mr Elston: Just briefly. This is an item on which I have risen several times. It basically is a question of denial of the ability of the opposition to place reasoned argument in front of the public and the committee.

We were prevented from doing that on previous occasions. It means that when we come to third reading, the bill itself is defective in principle because it did not deal with the issues, some of which were raised by the member for Mississauga North earlier. We think the principle of the bill, the bill itself, can be perfected to some measure -- not made perfect, obviously, but to some measure -- by returning this bill to the committee to hear and resolve upon the evidence on each of the amendments that were filed.

Some of those amendments, by the way, were filed so late in the day that there was not even any opportunity, of any sort, to actually deal with the issues of the amendments themselves. In fact, as the people will remember, we weren't even allowed to have the amendments themselves read into the record.

I think the committee's work has not been done. The committee has been frustrated by this. I would ask that we send the bill back, as my motion requires, so that the work can be done. I now ask the members to speak in relation to the intended amendment. I hope that the wisdom of letting the committee process in this place work and do its work, deliberate upon the materials which have been dealt with in some speeches in a more orderly fashion -- I certainly hope we can get the consent of the entire House to allow this to occur.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Mr Speaker, do you wish me to speak on the amendment or do you wish me to speak to third reading?

Mr Elston: On the amendment.

Mrs Marland: Excuse me. I would take direction from the Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Mississauga South can speak either on the motion that's been moved or on third reading of the bill.

Mrs Marland: I will speak on third reading of Bill 40. As our nation ponders its future and licks its constitutional wounds following the defeat of the Charlottetown accord, one thing is clear: Governments at all levels must turn their attention to our ravaged economy, which is struggling to recover from Canada's worst recession since the 1930s.

It is absolutely incredible, then, that the Bob Rae government of Ontario, rather than making economic recovery its top priority, is about to pass Bill 40 into law. This gift to the big union bosses will only ensure that the élite in Ontario's labour movement will keep their high-paying positions of power, while the average person, including the rank-and-file union members, will suffer, for Bill 40's amendments to the Labour Relations Act and the Employment Standards Act will kill investment and kill jobs.

Bill 40 is like a death sentence to thousands of unemployed Ontarians and their families. Rather than going back to work, they will lose their self-confidence and their homes. They will stay on welfare and count on food banks. Their children will grow up in poverty. This is not being alarmist; it is being realistic. Bill 40 could cost our province 295,000 jobs and $8.8 billion in forgone investment, according to a study by Ernst and Young, and remember, more than half a million Ontarians, one in every 10 people, are already out of work.

Bill 40 will seriously upset the balance between the rights of business and the rights of labour. Consider the principal measures in the legislation: Bill 40 will outlaw the use of replacement workers during a strike; it will give non-unionized employees the right to refuse the work of those on strike; it will make it easier for unions, particularly in the retail and service sectors, to organize and gain certification, and it will make it easier for fledging unions to get their first contract. The law will also override the Trespass to Property Act and permit organizing and picketing on third-party property, such as shopping malls.

Therefore, strikes will paralyse companies. Firms that are small or in fragile economic health will be unable to survive a lengthy strike. Knowing the impact of Bill 40 on businesses, many investors will choose not to do business in Ontario. We are in serious trouble when an influential magazine like Forbes publishes an article called A Lose-Lose Situation, warning the American business community that Bill 40 will "make the province's businesses less competitive than ever." The Forbes article cites several examples of companies that are pulling out of Ontario or cancelling their plans to expand here.

The NDP government has claimed that Quebec, which already has a law banning replacement workers, has not suffered the catastrophic results predicted by Ontario's business community. However, the Bob Rae socialists ignore the fact that many companies reacted to Quebec's law by contracting out work or setting up branch plants across the border in Vermont or Ontario. Quebec lost jobs as a result of its legislation.

Nor has Quebec gained other advantages from its labour relations law. From 1978, when its law was enacted, until 1990, Quebec had more strikes than Ontario in all years except two. In the same period, Quebec lost 802,000 more person-days to strike than Ontario, even though Quebec's workforce is smaller than ours. Quebec has also seen more violence in strike situations than Ontario, contrary to the NDP's argument that outlawing replacement workers will reduce picket line violence.

Looking at other measures of economic and employee wellbeing, Ontario has consistently outperformed Quebec. For example, Ontario workers have enjoyed higher wage increases and levels of employment than Quebec workers.

Why, then, would any responsible government introduce a similar labour relations law in Ontario? While we are asking questions, why would any responsible government pass such a law unless a cost-benefit analysis proved that, at the very least, it would not hurt our economy? The NDP has been unable to produce a single report showing that Bill 40 will provide economic benefit to Ontario.

Indeed, the Bob Rae government kept under wraps a study conducted by the Ministry of Treasury and Economics and the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology which examined the effect of a number of workplace practices, including labour relations provisions, on the competitiveness and productivity of Ontario business. Among other things, this study found that unions increased business costs by as much as 20% and that anti-replacement-worker provisions actually increased strike activity.

Ironically, while Premier Rae refuses to meet with police officers across the province who are taking part in a job action, his government is about to pass Bill 40, which will give many more Ontarians the right to strike and increase their power during a strike. If the Premier can't personally live with the consequences of the job action by the police, why is he so intent on increasing the number of job actions across our province? Is such confrontation his vision of ideal labour relations?

Unquestionably, increasing the powers of unions and the extent of unionization has serious consequences. It is therefore crucial that unionization be democratic and truly reflect the views of the majority. There is a simple way to accomplish this: Require that confidential votes be held in all cases of certification, ratification of agreements and decisions to strike.

The Progressive Conservative Labour critic, the member for Waterloo North, Elizabeth Witmer, introduced a private member's bill proposing this confidential voting process in order to respect the rights of workers. This bill was introduced in December 1991. She also introduced an amendment to Bill 40 proposing these confidential votes. However, the Bob Rae socialist government refused to consider our party's suggestion.

In the eight years that I have been a member of provincial Parliament, few issues have aroused as much concern in my community as Bill 40. When I sponsored a luncheon to debate labour law reform, we filled the hall to capacity. Indeed, just last week her worship Mayor Hazel McCallion of Mississauga personally delivered 50,000 coupons, more than 150 pounds of mail, to Premier Rae from the people who are opposed to Bill 40, yet the Premier didn't even come out of his office to speak to the mayor.

Mississauga is not alone in its opposition to Bill 40. A public opinion poll conducted by Environics Research Group showed that the majority of Ontarians think labour legislation will be bad for the people of the province. Labour law reform is not just a labour-versus-business issue; the changes will affect all of us. I have received about 400 letters and calls regarding Bill 40. While I can share only a few of them with the House, these examples represent the views of all but five people who contacted me.

David Gordon, executive director of the Mississauga Board of Trade, wrote: "Should these proposals become law, we would see serious erosion in the present balance between employer, employee and union rights....Legislation of this kind, which is so blatantly union-biased, sends all the wrong messages to those persons who look to Ontario as the place to do business in Canada."

Over 200 Mississauga businesses have contacted me about the bill. Brian Taylor, vice-president of St Lawrence Starch Co in my riding, wrote to Premier Rae: "Your Bill 40...is an insult to the people of Ontario and will destroy the future of this province. The last legislation Ontario needs at this time is reforms to the Labour Relations Act. We must rebuild existing industry, attract new investment; Bill 40 will do the complete opposite, it will turn Ontario into the graveyard of Canada and North America."

1640

I received a resolution from Mississauga city council which advised the Labour minister of council's grave concerns "that the recommended changes -- "

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): On a point of order, the member for Bruce.

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, neither the parliamentary assistant nor the minister is in the House. I ask that the debate be held until the minister or parliamentary assistant is here to carry on the work of the House.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Why are you doing this, Murray?

Mr Elston: Because it is the required rules that the parliamentary assistant or the minister be here.

The Deputy Speaker: There's nothing in the procedure, of course, that requires the parliamentary assistant or the minister to be here. It's normally a courtesy, and obviously I recognize that there is a minister in -- two ministers -- so the debate will continue on.

Mrs Marland: May I request that the clock be reversed to prior to that interruption?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, I would request that three minutes be replaced to the time left on the clock.

The Deputy Speaker: Please continue the debate. I will not change the clock.

Mrs Marland: I will resume where I was so rudely interrupted.

I received a resolution from Mississauga city council which advised the Labour minister of council's grave concerns that "the recommended changes would negatively affect both management rights in labour relations and the strength and viability of business and industry in the province."

The Peel Board of Education also contacted me to voice its concerns about the bill's impact on its ability to deliver educational services.

With many bargaining units in the school system being governed by the Labour Relations Act, Bill 40 will significantly increase the likelihood that schools will have to close during labour disputes. Obviously, disruption to our children's education must be avoided.

The Ontario Public School Boards Association produced several amendments concerning replacement workers, which our party presented during committee. For instance, we proposed that the prohibition on the use of replacement workers should not apply when it would cause schools to close. However, the NDP rejected our amendments.

Individual constituents too have been sufficiently worried about the consequences of Bill 40 to contact me. Mary Elizabeth Williams wrote:

"I am moved to write to you about Bill 40....I am very much against this measure, and wonder what we can do to prevent its passage.

"I believe that the majority of people in this province will suffer either directly or indirectly if this becomes law.

"Ontario will lose further ground in the struggle for competitiveness in world markets, and that translates into greater job losses, as the Ernst and Young study predicts.

"By tilting the existing balance towards unions, the government is reducing the basic rights of all Ontarians. The government's mandate is to promote the health of the economy, not to serve the interests of labour leaders. This is political blackmail."

Another constituent, Liisa Myatt, wrote in a letter to Premier Bob Rae:

"This country needs jobs...the people in this country need jobs...our economy demands jobs.

"The advertising campaign against your proposed labour law changes does not exaggerate what will happen in Ontario should these changes come into effect. More power for the unions will create an undesirable climate for business to locate here.

"This is really not a time for partisan politics, Mr Rae...it is time for responsible government. Please renew our faith in the people chosen to lead us and set aside the proposed changes to the labour law."

Sadly, the labour law changes will be passed by the NDP majority government this week. However, I would like to assure my constituents that after the next provincial election, when you elect a Mike Harris Progressive Conservative government, one of our first acts will be to repeal Bill 40. While the Liberals have waffled on this issue, we have always been clear: a Progressive Conservative provincial government will rescind Bill 40 as part of our strategy to restore Ontario's battered economy to the strength this province enjoyed under 42 years of Progressive Conservative leadership.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Mr Speaker, I certainly appreciate the opportunity this afternoon to speak on this very important piece of legislation, a piece of legislation probably that, more than anything, in my mind indicates the direction that this government wants to go in for the next few years as we work at renewing the economy of the province and try to compete in a global economy that is coming at us in ever more difficult and different ways as we look into the future.

I think it's important for all of us this afternoon to consider for a few minutes the results of the recent referendum on the Constitution of this country, and consider some of the tactics that some of my colleagues and others on both sides of the question involved themselves in as they tried to convince people that their side was right and the other side was wrong. There were many, I think, very dramatic and complicated presentations made as to the results and the effects of either a Yes or a No vote in front of that question.

I must say that being a supporter of the Yes, I was somewhat disturbed by the vehemence and the lengths that some of the Yes people, initially in the debate, went to to talk about how our country would fall apart, how our economy would come apart at the seams and all kinds of dire consequences would come about the day after a No was given on that referendum.

I think it reflects very much some of the discussion that we're hearing from the opposition in front of the present package of legislation that we have here as it regards our Labour Relations Act in this province. All kinds of dire consequences are painted the day after this piece of legislation comes in.

I said on the night of the vote on the referendum, accepting the fact that it was turned down, that, in fact, the next morning the sun would rise and life would go on, and we in the country would find ways to live together and take advantage of all of the opportunities that would come our way and find partnerships that would be helpful.

I suggest to you that this package of legislation certainly reflects this government's attempt to deal with a very difficult economy at a time when the global economy is out there scouring the world for the lowest common denominator. We, in Ontario, have come to accept and live a quality of life and expect a standard of living that comes from the work that we put in and the effort that we make, and we've found ways to work together in partnership to that end.

I suggest, as we look at the difficult economic situation that the world finds itself in today, that if we as a province want to maintain the standard of living and quality of life we've come to enjoy, it behooves us to be doing all that we can to encourage a coming together of people who in the past saw themselves as adversaries, and this legislation does that.

1650

It sets a scene or a stage for the labour component of the economic activity of this province to feel that what they have to contribute is valuable, to feel comfortable in coming to the table to discuss its future, and in fact all our futures, in a way that I think will challenge them to be ever more courageous and creative in the ways they're willing to participate.

I say that probably as much out of my own experience in the community of Sault Ste Marie: I'm looking at what's happened over the last year with regard to the Algoma Steel situation, where we were presented with a scenario for that particular company that wasn't very palatable for those of us who live and work in Sault Ste Marie and who hope to live and work in that community for a long time to come.

The labour movement, in partnership with this government, brought forth a position in front of that question that allowed for a different proposition which everybody ultimately was able to buy into. If, in that instance, the steelworkers had not sensed a feeling of support and had not seen the leadership that came forth from the Premier and the powers that be in this government, that wouldn't have happened. On the day the tentative agreement for Algoma Steel was announced in Sault Ste Marie, it's amazing how there was a collective sigh of relief. It was like a black cloud had been moved from on top of the community.

Probably the place where it was most obviously felt by myself and others was in the real estate market, where for about the year that the future of Algoma Steel was in question, houses were not moving in our community. All of a sudden, people began to feel more confident in front of whether they would sell a house or buy a house. The economy was stimulated in a way that was unprecedented and there was a greater sense of stability that came into our community.

I suggest to you that when this government is successful in bringing this legislation forward and having it passed, as it will, and the province then comes to terms with what it provides by way of opportunity for people to come together in partnerships that were unknown before, there will be a collective sigh of relief in this province as well, as we look into the future and how we will organize our economic life. When we, as people who live and work in the province, begin to exude this sense of confidence and this new energy that will be created by these partnerships, which in fact have already begun to happen and will speed up, those outside our jurisdiction will recognize that and be ever more willing and wanting to come and invest in this province.

As I said in starting, Mr Speaker, I suggest to you that the fearmongering that is going on across the way with regard to this piece of legislation is nothing more than that. On the day after this piece of legislation is passed, life will go on in this province, and even more so, life will go on with the dark cloud of uncertainty that is above it right now moved aside. There will be a renewed sense of confidence in the labour force and ultimately in the business community because of the new rules that will be in place as to how we will work together, and all of us will be better off for it.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'm pleased to have an opportunity to join the third reading debate on this very important legislation. Let me say at the outset that I was not able to join others in the assembly in the public hearings process that was held to allow the public a say during the previous summer, though I can tell you, very few pieces of legislation in my time here have engendered the kind of interest that Bill 40 has engendered. I am not sorry that I was not part of the summer hearings, because quite frankly I've had, as I have indicated before, some very real concerns about the way in which this government has proceeded with this entire matter.

Let me say at the outset what I've said to people in my own community in Renfrew county and elsewhere, that there should be no surprise that a New Democratic government would want to amend the Labour Relations Act and do so in a way that has a clear bias in favour of the New Democratic Party's traditional and ongoing orientation, which is with the union movement in this province. That shouldn't surprise anyone.

But in terms of process -- let me start with process -- I must say that I think what has happened here is most regrettable. I can't, in my time, remember ever any government introducing major legislation on or about June 4 and expecting and forcing that legislation through all stages within four or five months. I think that is unreasonable, I think it is unfair, and perhaps most sadly, I think it will rebound to the everlasting sorrow and discredit of the New Democratic Party of Ontario and some of its closest friends. I say that most sincerely.

I say again what I've said before: If any Tory or Liberal government had sought to enact this kind of legislation and sought to do so in the way in which the Rae government has proceeded, there would be hell to pay around here the likes of which members, I don't think, in this Parliament could even begin to imagine.

I've had many heated battles with my friends opposite over the years, and particularly when I was in government, but even in my most determined moments, I could not have imagined proceeding with any significant piece of legislation in the way the Rae government has chosen to proceed with this particular bill. It is a sad and sorry day for this Legislature, and I repeat that it may very well be a very, very sad and sorry precedent for the New Democratic Party and its friends, this business of Bill 40, in the way in which they have proceeded.

The public hearings offered to the community during the heat of the peak of the summer were clearly an insult. I know many people, I represent many people who had little or no opportunity even to learn about the public hearings, and of course the New Democratic Party manipulated and managed this process in a way to deny public access to the hearings process. The idea that you would introduce the bill for first reading on June 4 and add to that bill sweeping changes to the standing orders of this Legislature, orders which had as their only concern greasing the skids so Bob Rae and friends could railroad this bill through within record time, is again an affront.

My friends opposite nod their heads in the negative but they, quite frankly, many of them, do not know of what they speak. I can say with some authority that over the course of the past 17 years there is no precedent for what this government has done with this kind of legislation. I hope, quite frankly, that no successor government ever tries to, quote, "get even" with the same kind of process, because I can assure my friends opposite I would not and will not support that kind of railroading.

I simply begin my remarks this afternoon by observing that it is a very, very sad day for this Legislature, and that the process the Rae government proceeded with, particularly having public hearings in the peak of the summer on almost no notice, was a transparent insult to the people of Ontario who wanted to partake of the public discussion in so far as Bill 40 is concerned.

1700

I know that my friends opposite in the New Democratic Party see this as the dawn of a new era. This, for them, is the apogee of their legislative achievement. I have no intention of debating this bill with my friends opposite because, quite frankly, it would be like debating the virgin birth with the Curia in Rome. It is just simply not useful, I think, for me as a pragmatic Liberal to engage in that kind of debate.

I respect entirely the ideological fervour of my friends opposite when it comes to this kind of enactment. I don't expect there to be much engagement as between the varying sides in this because, quite frankly, at the core it does involve rather fundamentally different views as to how individuals and groups of individuals see the workplace.

I am not one of those, let me say, who thinks that this bill is all bad. Far from it: I think there are elements of Bill 40 which are entirely supportable. But overall, Bill 40, and the policy which informs it, I believe to be untimely, unbalanced and in significant components unworkable.

Untimely because, as all honourable members know, we are in this province today gripped in the midst of one of the worst economic downturns that we have experienced in over 50 years. This is not, as the Treasurer observed the other day, a recession like the recessions of the early 1980s, the mid-1970s, the late 1950s. There is more and more evidence to suggest that this recession/depression -- and that's what it is for many of the people I represent in the rural part of eastern Ontario -- this economic downturn is eating at the very vitals of the wealth-producing part of the Ontario economy. We have over the past three years lost apparently something in the order of 18% to 20% of the nearly one million manufacturing jobs in the province of Ontario, and the trend line continues downward.

My friend the member for Bruce has made available to me a copy of the Globe and Mail of November 3, 1992, and I noticed that there is an article in the Globe by Marian Stinson entitled "Dofasco's Woes Continue." I simply want to make the point that at this juncture in our economic history, we face ongoing pressures on key elements of the manufacturing component of the Ontario economy.

I said the other day -- I repeat now -- that internal government data and external public information make plain that auto and steel are under very, very great pressure. As the Premier wings his way to Japan, we have new management at General Motors which is clearly mandated to reduce, and reduce substantially, the number of jobs across the North American GM operation.

I noticed in the papers today that auto sector analysts in Philadelphia and Toronto are saying that there is or ought to be real concern about at least one of the facilities in Oshawa, to be specific about the one analyst. I hope and pray those people are wrong.

I hear from very good sources within the Ontario government that a study has been done of the Ontario steel industry which suggests that a further 30% reduction in employment in the Ontario steel industry will be confronting us over the next little while. When one sees the recent reports out of Hamilton and when one hears what one hears about Sault Ste Marie, one has to be concerned.

Let me just read a little bit of the story in yesterday's Globe and Mail, "Dofasco's Woes Continue." "Dofasco Inc lost $14.7 million or 27 cents a share in the latest quarter, a jump from the $10.1 million or 24 cents it lost during the same period last year." It goes on to outline the problems that are being experienced by the main Canadian steel producers.

I just wanted to cite the following from that article:

"In a closed meeting with financial analysts, Dofasco said it is considering sites in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky and two unspecified Canadian locations for its new mini-mill plant.

"The company is getting quotes on power costs from local utilities in each region, which will be crucial to the decision, because electricity is one of the main costs for an electric furnace operation. Mini-mills melt scrap in electric furnaces, replacing the traditional method of using iron ore and lime in a blast furnace."

That's just one very recent indication of how a key Ontario-based steel producer is telling us that its losses are continuing, and to the extent that it is going to make new investment, it is looking in other jurisdictions like Pennsylvania and Ohio and, to be fair, in undisclosed Ontario sites where it believes the electricity rates will be favourable.

I just want to say in this debate that you can't read that article and you can't connect that reality with what is perceived by the investment and business community as to the import of Bill 40 and feel very comfortable that the very good, well-paying jobs for steelworkers in Ontario are going to be very comforted and satisfied with the kind of public policy the Rae government is proceeding with and pursuing, most especially with its Hydro policy and most especially with this kind of labour relations policy.

I brought with me today -- and I'm obviously not going to be able to read -- the correspondence from my constituents in Renfrew county. But I have letters from nurses, from farmers, from the chambers of commerce in communities like Pembroke, from a host of other people, not all of whom by any stretch of the imagination are in the business community. There are many working men and women who have asked me to raise their concern about what they think this policy and the attitude of the Rae government is going to do to their jobs and their prospect of keeping their jobs.

When I say the policy is untimely, I mean it is untimely. My constituents, who are out of work in record numbers, want me to stand in my place and convey on their behalf to Mr Mackenzie, Mr Rae and everyone else that the primary worry of the people in Renfrew county is employment, is job creation. The people who work in the sawmills and in the other manufacturing and related concerns are not so ideological and are not so silly as to imagine that there is not some connection between the kind of labour relations policy we have and the future of economic growth and employment growth in eastern Ontario and elsewhere in the province.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): And Metro.

Mr Conway: My friend the member for Parkdale talks about Metro, where of course we have today an unemployment rate that is unthinkable in terms of what we've known in the modern period.

I ask my friends in the New Democratic Party to pay attention to what the working men and women of this province are telling all of us. I know my friends opposite realize --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. You're not in your chair.

Mr Conway: I cannot imagine a worse time for this or any government to be proceeding with this kind of legislation. It was ill-starred from the very beginning, and I don't entirely blame the government for this, though the government bears the lion's share of the responsibility.

The New Democrats, as I have discovered, approach everything from the time of day to the most important issue on, it seems, a purely collective bargaining process. You ask a New Democrat for the time of day and his first response is to say, "Well, what will you trade for it?"

What happened here, obviously, is that the government decided that in this mandate it wanted to do some things for its friends in organized labour. I want to recite the statistic that my friend the member for Mississauga North has cited many times, that 70% of the Ontario workforce is unorganized. This Bill 40 will do little or nothing for the hundreds of thousands of unorganized men and women in this province, and it has been disingenuous, to say the least, for the Minister of Labour and the Premier and others to go about saying that this bill is going to do some things for domestics and others, when they know and we know that those promises, those commitments, are demonstrably untrue.

I listened this summer to many a baseball game where there were all kinds of ads from the business council on the one side and from organized labour on the other, and there was no small measure of disinformation on both sides. But I'll tell you, Julie Davis and Bob Mackenzie don't need to wring their hands in protest at the business community for disinformation, because I listened to some of the ads that were placed during those ball games this summer by the Ontario Federation of Labour and others. They were interesting, they were entertaining in some respects, but in terms of key issues related to this bill, the labour pitch was absolutely off the mark; it was irrelevant and inaccurate as to what it is this bill does.

1710

Mr Elston: It made George Bush look like an amateur.

Mr Conway: Time does not permit me this afternoon to do that. I want to make the point, though, as the public hearings heard, that this bill and the policy is not just untimely because it is not going to help with any new job creation, as my leader has pointed out, but for people like Dare Foods and others and perhaps Dofasco, it is going to speed the export of jobs from Ontario to other Canadian provinces and to other jurisdictions in North America. That's not what the men and women I represent want this Legislature or any government doing business here to do.

The bill is fundamentally unbalanced because the New Democratic Party in government could not imagine a process that involved the other side, the business community. It's not just the business community, but all of those people who are unorganized and the other community interests that are going to be vitally affected by this kind of policy. There was no real and meaningful effort to include all of the stakeholders in the process.

My friends opposite say, "Well, look at what happened in British Columbia as compared to what happened in Ontario." I say, "Let's take a look." I don't like everything that's in the BC package, but I will give Mr Harcourt credit for proceeding in a much more evenhanded and open way than did Mr Rae. This government would do well to look at some of the attitudes of the Harcourt government. Bob Rae thinks that Davey Barrett is still the Premier of BC and that we're still back in the early 1970s.

I'll say this for Mike Harcourt: He is not going to repeat the kind of mistakes the well-intentioned, often ideological Davey Barrett made, mistakes that Bob Rae and Bob Mackenzie seem to want to repeat in spades in this province in this mandate. But the process was unfair and it was unbalanced.

The final observation from my point of view is that this bill and the policy which informs it, in key components, is unworkable. In my community of Renfrew county, I have heard from farmers, from small business people, from people who run the public utilities, like the Pembroke PUC, from people who are running hospitals, from people running our family and children's services, and they are telling me that on the basis of what they have read in this bill, on the basis of what they have heard from government officials, on the basis of what they heard at the public hearings, they are very concerned, whether they are at a municipal utility or at family and children's services, that they are not going to be able to meet their obligations under other provincial statutes, and I think that should give all of us pause.

There is absolutely no question, as I said earlier, that certain elements of Bill 40 are good and sensible and they ought to be supported. But this government should be castigated, not just by this Legislature but by the province as a whole, for the ham-fisted, the railroading, the unfair, the unbalanced and the unreasonable way in which it has taken this massive cod liver oil pill and attempted, in four short months, to ram it down the collective throat of a province that is grappling with economic recovery in the midst of a horrific recession where everyone I know says to me and to everyone in elected office, "Stop and think about the first order requirement," which is: Turn your attention to the creation of new wealth; do that which will stimulate economic growth and job creation.

I take my seat on behalf of the people of Renfrew county, who would say, "The tragedy of Bill 40 is that it does nothing to help economic recovery and does a lot to impede economic growth and job creation," surely the first requirement for everyone in this Legislature.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I would like to make a few comments this afternoon on the motion that was made specifically by Mr Elston a few moments ago, and that is a reasoned motion, specifically with reference to the fact that on the final day of the committee hearings there were 26 at the final hour. There were 26 amendments put forward by the government at 5 o'clock in the afternoon, and remarkably, the next sitting day, Monday, these amendments were deemed to be law, deemed to be passed.

What a strange procedure. I would imagine that most of the members on the government side have not even read those amendments; they have no idea what they say, and here we are today debating Bill 40, not knowing what those amendments are. The committee hasn't dealt with them; I suspect some committee members certainly haven't read them.

So I think Mr Elston's proposal that this not be read a third time -- and there's nothing wrong in delaying the debate on this subject until the standing committee on resources development has reviewed these various amendments, because it gets back to the whole issue of consultation.

The government has stood up, the parliamentary assistant stood up later this afternoon and talked about all the wonderful consultation that has taken place by the government from start to finish. I say that my participating in this so-called debate this afternoon -- it's not a debate; it's a sham. We're part of the government's timetable. They're going to ram this law down the throats of the people of Ontario, no matter what. In fact, they're going to ram amendments down that haven't even been debated. What a remarkable procedure. What a remarkable payoff to the unions of this province -- absolutely unbelievable.

So I would ask that all members of the House consider the proposal by Mr Elston and support that amendment, because we must review a bill on which I cannot believe that every member in this House has not received more telephone calls and more correspondence and more debate among their constituents than on any subject. The thousands of people who haven't been heard, who want to be heard -- the committee only heard a small portion of the people who wish to be heard.

We've just gone through a referendum in this country in which it became quite clear that the people didn't want the proposals that were put forward in the Charlottetown accord. The fact of the matter is that all the government leaders said, "Fine, we're going to listen to the people in our respective provinces." Mr Rae, the Premier, has stood and said, "Fine, we're going to listen to the people in this province and we're not going to proceed, because there aren't sufficient people in this province who want this Charlottetown accord."

Similarly, I think if the Premier and the minister were to look at the overwhelming evidence that has come forward, yes, there are unions and there are strong union people who think it's a wonderful thing, and I suppose there are very strong people on this side of the House who think it's a wonderful thing. The fact of the matter is that the system in this province won't work unless you have both the employees and the employers working together. It simply won't happen. People will leave the province. Employers will leave the province; they will go out of business. It won't work. As the member for Renfrew North said, it's not going to solve the problem; it's not workable.

If we look at the referendum, if we're going to be consistent, if we're going to be those new politicians who are going to study the concerns of all the people, at the very least let's read the amendments. How can we possibly say we're going to deem that they're going to be passed? We're not even going to read them. They're just going to be law.

What a strange procedure this new order on this side of the House, this new order of NDP, has created in this province. They're now passing laws that we're not even able to debate, that we're not even able to see. Time allocation is one thing, but to put forward amendments that are deemed to have been passed by committee is really an astounding procedure. It's not a matter of whether you're in favour or not in favour of those amendments. Let's look at them. Who put these amendments forward? The élite of the NDP put them forward. I would imagine that the bulk of the NDP haven't even seen these amendments.

1720

So we must look at the will of all of the people. We must look at what went on in this election to the south of us, in the United States. We watched President Bush not respond to the main issues of the country to the south of us, which were economics and jobs. President Bush failed to deal with those issues and he has now been asked to leave office; he has not been given an opportunity to serve a second term. This recession we're in now is the worst recession in 50 years. I think we all agree with that.

Interjection.

Mr Tilson: You can say it has been compounded by different factors. The fact of the matter is, it's a terrible, terrible recession. We should be doing everything we can to encourage business to stay alive, to encourage business to operate. We shouldn't be discouraging them.

You must admit, the business community are being discouraged. Why would, for example, an American subsidiary in this province stay here? Why would they stay -- just on the worker replacement issue? They can't operate. With the worker replacement issue, they now have really few choices. They don't need to go back to the bargaining table. The union has them by the throat. They can't operate, they can't carry on. So the employer can therefore give in and make very short-term decisions which may affect the overall competitiveness of that company. Yes, it may solve the union-employer disruption, but it may result in a decision they're being forced to make because of this high-handed position of the union. The result is that it may be all right for a number of months, it may be all right for a year, but their competitive position may be affected. We're in a global economy. Whether we like it or not, we have to compete in the global economy. It's a difficult decision that they have. The other alternative, of course, is that they, if they're an American subsidiary or a subsidiary from another country, can leave the country. They can say, "We're not going to stay here."

Yes, my friend the member for Durham West has talked about taxes and other things caused by the federal government and the provincial government. Yes, the federal government has put high taxes and so has this provincial government, this NDP government. The taxes, since you have taken power, have discouraged people from coming to this province. So there's no question that therefore the American subsidiary or the European subsidiary is going to close its doors. They're going to close their doors and leave. Why would they stay? The other alternative is, particularly if they are a small business, that they could simply close their doors and say: "We can't stand it any longer. We can't operate. We can't make a decent living."

So what does all that mean? It means people are going to lose their jobs at a time when the unemployment in this province is higher than it has been for some time. The Treasurer recently made a statement which showed that the province has lost more than 320,000 jobs as a result of the recession.

The fact is, we've got an unemployment problem in this province. What are we going to do about it? We're going to pass Bill 40. We're going to put people out of work. Don't say, "It's threatening; it's threatening." It's not threatening. The fact of the matter is, if you're a small business and you can't operate, there's no point in going into collective bargaining.

So I support the amendment. In my closing remarks I would like simply to read a portion of a letter. My office, as I'm sure all of you have, has received hundreds and hundreds of letters on this subject of people in our community, not only in our own ridings but outside our ridings, and I'm not even the Labour critic. Gosh knows what she has received, or Mr Offer, the critic for the Liberals, or the minister. Gosh knows what they've received. I can't believe they've been swamped with correspondence, but direct correspondence in my riding has been unbelievable -- the phone calls, the expression of concern as to how they're going to stay alive.

So just at random I've picked one letter, which is typical of the letters I've received and expresses the concerns of the people in my riding of Dufferin-Peel.

This is a letter from a firm called Versatile Spray Painting Ltd. This is a firm which has been in business in this area for over 30 years. They say, "What's the rush?" -- and what is the rush? -- all of which makes Mr Elston's motion most relevant. It's a letter which was written to me, and it comes from Patrick Heslin, who's the vice-president of Versatile Spray Painting Ltd:

"What's the rush? Why won't the government listen to companies like mine before it acts?

"The government's OLRA changes only seem to take union proposals into account, and offer only lipservice to the concerns of business. They would tilt the union-management balance in favour of the unions, something that will increase workplace acrimony and confrontation." And that's something else. It's going to be absolute war. What we're trying to do is make the system work, to make the employer and the worker get along, to make this system work. That's what this bill's going to do. As Mr Heslin says, it's going to create "workplace acrimony and confrontation." It's going to increase.

"Second, I am not convinced that there is a demonstrated need for these changes. At a time when our unemployment rate is so high, when business confidence is so low, and when the challenge of competitiveness is so real, these changes do nothing to put our economy back on the road to economic growth. If the government is serious about getting Ontario out of the recession, then why is it introducing a scheme that could drive thousands of jobs and billions in investment out of Ontario? Why is there such a pressing need to change some of the most progressive labour regulations on the continent?"

All of which gets to, why won't this government dispute these allegations? There was a study by Ernst and Young, and they challenge that. They say, "Oh, well, that's not any good." But why won't they produce their own? Ernst and Young, of course, made it quite clear that Ontario stands to lose 295,000 jobs and $8.8 billion in investment in the next five years. If this is wrong, why won't the government show it's wrong? Why won't they even produce some sort of facts to show that this major piece of legislation isn't going to have that effect?

Mr Heslin proceeds:

"I feel that these changes would be very harmful to Ontario, including our employees. These days, people are more concerned about whether or not they have a job -- not whether or not it is unionized. I cannot see how this labour law scheme will improve our standard of living, let alone maintain the prosperity we've worked so hard to achieve. Like it or not, we are living in a global economy. Only a renewed emphasis on productivity, competitiveness, and economic growth will give business the confidence to spend."

That's what it's all about. You need business. I know you hate business over there, but you need them. Like it or not, you need them. You need to put something forward that's going to encourage them to invest, to expand, to create more jobs, to improve the economy. You're not doing that with this bill.

"Finally," Mr Heslin states, "business is already suffering from the government's other policies. These days, taxes are too high. The Treasurer has announced that they will be even higher next year to cover the government's record $9.7 billion deficit. Many Ontario companies are reeling from the recession, and have said they won't invest in the province because of the government's policies. Instead of introducing unnecessary labour laws, the government should be acting to hold the line on taxes, reduce the cost of doing business here, and aggressively encourage new investment."

I'm going to close my comments at this time. I know Mr Stockwell has some comments to make. I will only say that I would encourage members of the House to support the motion of Mr Elston and to finally vote against the bill. Realize your folly and change your mind.

1730

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): I'm happy to be able to participate in the debate today.

The member for Dufferin-Peel made reference to the US election that of course took place last night, and the fact that George Bush didn't do the job in the United States. Well, he'd be interested to know that in Buffalo at least one person, and I want to quote from the Toronto Sun, "Warehouse worker Brian Devine, 23, said he secured his future by voting for Clinton, who will 'pass a bill that if I go on strike, the company can't hire replacement workers.'"

It's interesting that the member for Dufferin-Peel recognizes full well that indeed the neo-Conservative policies that have been in place in the United States for the last few years have done very little for people like that warehouse worker in Buffalo. It's obvious that there is support in the United States for dealing with some of those issues we're dealing with now.

In the past couple of years, I think it's clear that our government has tried to involve the people of Ontario in the life of this province. We have tried in our policies to recognize and reflect the contribution that workers make to our workplaces, to our economy and to our society as a whole. That's been no easy job. It appears to me and many others that we are up against an anti-worker, neo-Conservative agenda that wants to unravel any gains that ordinary people have made in this province. All you have to do is listen to the Conservative Party in this House and outside this House to understand just exactly what that means.

I want to quote from a recent newspaper column that opposed some of our government's labour initiatives. I think it's important. It said, and I quote, "What this government doesn't seem to realize is that labour is a commodity like a case of beer, an automobile or a refrigerator." What a tremendous insult to the working people of this province.

I challenge any of you in this House to go to the factories in this province, to go to the construction sites, to go to the office complexes and deliver that message to working people face to face. I'd certainly be interested in the reaction that you receive.

All we see in the newspapers and on TV these days, and hear from the opposition parties in this House, is a concern for the bottom line of companies but no concern for the wellbeing of our workers. The economy is more than just a bottom line and balance sheets. It's about workers, their families and their dreams. Even in a recession, especially in a recession, we have a responsibility to help workers and their families get back on their feet and become productive citizens once again.

But we've got to have everyone on side seeing things the same way to make that happen. That's difficult because hard times, the times we're experiencing now, eat away at human generosity. This debate over Bill 40 is a perfect illustration of the mean-spirited and transparently partisan attacks on this government.

The Labour Relations Act has not been significantly updated in 15 years, and all you have to do is look around you to see how much our workforce and our workplaces have changed during that time. In the past 25 years, women have joined the workforce by the hundreds of thousands. Part-time work is much more common now than before and thousands of new Canadians are working at their very first jobs right here in Ontario.

The driving force behind Bill 40 is the need, and the obvious need, to have laws that reflect the new realities of our workplaces and our economy. If that's true, why do we have some sectors of the business community that are against any change at all? Why have we faced the most vicious, bitter attacks on this initiative that most of us have ever seen? Why the opposition in this House?

I believe it's an attack on the working people of this province. What we're doing is simply ensuring that there is a continuation of the notion of basic democratic rights: a worker's right to join an organization of his or her choice, and a basic right for that organization to be able to bargain with its employer.

These are not new rights. These are rights that go back decades in the history of this province. These are rights protected by previous Conservative and Liberal governments. Ontario Hydro employees and teachers were granted the right to strike by none other than Bill Davis back in the early 1970s. Public utilities have had that same right for a generation.

When you see ads about Bill 40 in the newspapers and on television that are false and misleading, you realize that fearmongering is considered acceptable by at least some in our society. If you've seen those ads, you know they have headlines that scream, "Closed," "Bankrupt," "Violated," "Conflict." That's their image and vision of Ontario. These ads are deceptive and emit information in a manner that is also deceptive. Everyone is entitled to his opinion, but when these organizations promote misinformation as fact, it's just a negative expression of resistance to any positive change.

There is another assertion in these ads that I think should be tackled head on: the allegation that what we're doing will cost jobs and that there is neutral scientific data which backs that up. You may have seen in those television commercials and in the newspaper ads that 295,000 jobs will be lost as a result of labour law reform. The source for that study, described as an independent study, is Ernst and Young. Ernst and Young carried out an opinion survey of corporate executives that was paid for by a group of employers opposed to any labour law reform; nothing more, nothing less than that.

Those polls and those ads are meant to shape public opinion; they're not meant to measure it at all. Even Ernst and Young itself clearly states that the results of that study could be coloured by the respondents' wish to influence this government.

The allegation that the survey is based on the legislation is also false. The survey was based on the discussion paper of November 1991, a discussion paper that was intended to arouse comment and it did indeed. Executives taking part in the survey were told about six of the government's proposals. Of the six, two don't appear in the legislation at all; another two were modified to respond to concerns raised by those very same business people, and in fact only one of the proposals is accurately described -- one out of six.

Despite all of this, we find that these highly paid lobbyists continue to recycle misinformation. I believe that what has damaged investment more than anything else in this province over the last year has been those negative doom and gloom scenarios put forth by our opponents.

This government is encouraging investment. It is those ads and that kind of shortsighted reactionary campaign that's discouraging investment. I believe that the working people of Ontario will see through that very obvious misinformation campaign. I think the positive thrust of this legislation will touch workers who have not yet had the opportunity to bargain collectively with their employer. At the very least, our proposals will make the workplace a little better and life a little more liveable for some working people.

Bill 40 contains the seed for a whole new era in labour-management workplace relations. I think it's clear that any thinking person would agree that there has to be a stronger atmosphere of mutual respect, respect for one another, and not this attempt to intimidate and frighten. Fearmongering is the most old-fashioned kind of politics and the worst kind of economics. It's not the way to build a modern country or a modern economy. It's not the way to encourage modern labour relations in a modern Ontario.

1740

The opposition parties want to roll the clock back to the anti-worker days of the 1930s. The Conservative Party in this House has clearly stated that one of its first objectives will be to repeal Bill 40. What it's really saying is that the party's first objective is to repeal any worker rights in this province, to continue its attack on workers in this province. That's what it's all about. The opposition party and the third party spend a lot of time in this place and outside this place mouthing their concern for the economy of the province and being quick to blame all the economic woes that they perceive in this province to be the direct result of a labour relations bill. They take no responsibility for what has happened in this province up till now.

The member for Renfrew North raises the issue of power rates and that somehow Bill 40, somehow this government, is responsible for those power rates. They don't raise the issue about the eight years or so that they were in charge of that corporation. They don't raise any of the decisions that were made during their term in office. The third party makes no reference to the fact that for 42 years in this province it had a stranglehold on Ontario Hydro. It takes no responsibility for any of the decisions that were made up till now.

Any reasonably intelligent person would know and understand that what's happening in this province around the issue of hydro rates and business -- it's clear that we are paying for mismanagement and errors of the past. The chicken has come home to roost, the bills must be paid, and unfortunately we have to deal with it, but we'll deal with it.

But it's a little ironic, I think, that you never hear from the opposition party or the third party about any of their role in all the scenarios that have come to light in Ontario, and they have had a role, a clear role. They've also had the opportunity, and I think in some cases they didn't take the opportunity, they didn't do the right thing, they didn't make the tough decisions.

This government is not going to go backwards. It is not going to follow the advice of the third party, which wants to roll the clock backwards. We will move forward with Bill 40 and we will continue to move forward our agenda for working people in this province. That's what I believe this bill is all about. It is not about union bosses. It is not about some of the things you hear from the third party. It is about workers' rights and working people in the province of Ontario.

The third party continues, the member for Dufferin-Peel as well, to raise the issue that this is non-competitive. Since when have democratic rights been non-competitive? The proposals in Bill 40 will help the people of this province, will in the end foster a climate of labour relations that will improve our economy as a whole, and I give my wholehearted support for Bill 40 and would ask other members in other parties in this House to give it some serious thought and back off the political partisanship and realize that this bill is in the best interests of working people in this province.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Five minutes for Bill 40: That's what we've been reduced to in this House. The rule changes that have been adopted --

Ms Murdock: You made the choice.

Mr Stockwell: I didn't make that choice; you made that choice and you pushed it through this House.

Mr Mammoliti: Hurry up and talk. Stop complaining, please.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, can you control this member, please? If he's going to heckle me, I don't mind, but can he just heckle me from his seat?

I have five minutes on a bill this important because they wanted to ram legislation through for rule changes that left the opportunity by the opposition to speak to it completely muffled.

Quickly, it's hard to believe that in two and a half short years this government has lost complete touch with the people of this province. I haven't had one person speak to me about needing to update the labour legislation, about the fact that they need to reorganize. What people out there are talking about is creating jobs, creating wealth, hopefully creating a future for their children. What we are stuck in here debating on a Wednesday afternoon debating is labour legislation that, quite frankly, aside from some union executives and some owners, business community, no one cares about, no one. Rank and file union representatives don't care about this; union executives care about it. The unemployed don't care about it. Nobody cares about this but the executives of unions and this government, and those who are opposed care because it's going to make them uncompetitive.

In two and a half years they've lost touch. In two and a half years hundreds of thousands of people have lost their jobs. In two and a half years we're $20 billion further in debt. In two and a half years they've had more cabinet ministers in disgraceful exits than you would have in an entire cabinet shuffle. In two and a half years we've had a government that is out of touch with the community and out of touch in the polls. That's why we're faced with this debate today: a payoff for union executives.

I'd like to deal specifically with one small component of this piece of legislation, considering the limitations you have foisted upon opposition that are both unfair and discriminatory. I'll talk about one specific angle: the democratic process. If you opposite are so truly committed to the democratic process, if you are so truly committed to the rights of workers, if you are so truly committed to fairness and representing minorities, why does this government not allow a secret ballot when organizing?

There is nothing more fundamental in the democratic society we live in than being able to vote in a secret ballot as to whether you agree or disagree. The suggestion is that it's too complicated, it's too difficult, it's open to intimidation. Yet not much more than two weeks ago this entire nation went to the polls and voted secretly on a referendum; 12 to 15 million people cast a ballot. We could do it for a constitution, we could do it across a country, but you can't do it in a simple organizing drive.

It is fundamentally undemocratic and it flies in the face of democracy. Why is that the case? Because intimidation comes from both sides of the street. Yes, management can intimidate; I don't deny it. Yes, unions can intimidate; I don't deny it.

What is a fair and acceptable process that has held true in the history of time? What is the true democratic test? What is the true measure of a democracy? A secret ballot, a chance to go in with no pressure and with no intimidation and cast an unbiased vote as to your thinking. You, the Minister of Labour, the parliamentary assistant and this government will not allow it. I say that they're out of touch and undemocratic. It's unfair and it's out of sight. The point will be made crystal clear when this particular legislation passes and this recession turns into a depression.

1750

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): It's a pleasure to be up speaking on Bill 40. We've listened to a lot of rhetoric coming from across the floor. We've heard a lot of things being said across the floor and it still continues, some coming from an ideological base, some coming from an intelligent base. Most of the ideological stuff I can deal with; the other things that are being said are unintelligible.

This Labour Relations Act hasn't been changed in over 15 years. The minister went forth and went out to the communities first with a document that said these were proposed changes to the act, and he went around the province. It's unprecedented for a minister to go out around the province, around the different communities to listen to the public about legislation that is coming in, how it's going to affect you and how it's going to affect your everyday life. That, in itself, speaks more for the consultative process than anything else any other government has done.

If I remember correctly from previous years, I remember when the Liberals went around with Bill 162 and listened and listened but didn't change it when it finally did come in. If there were amendments, they were minuscule amendments. They didn't actually listen to the people.

We've made so many changes on this piece of legislation that it goes beyond me. In fact, I'm one of those people who thinks we've backed off a little too much.

As far as the time to build bridges is concerned, everyone knows that right now we're in an economic crisis that needs the work of every Canadian, every Ontarian, whether we're unionized, non-unionized, management, non-management. This sort of building together must continue, and it's happened, if we listen to what General Motors said about Oshawa. They couldn't have made the commitment to Oshawa and the jobs in Oshawa without the help of the working people, without the help of the union.

In my own community, MacMillan-Bathurst has introduced a program where the union was involved along with every step: the planning process, the process of implementing new machinery, the training process. The management was not afraid to go and consult with its labour colleagues, because it knows that for the business to be viable, everyone has to be working together.

That's what this Bill 40 is about. It's about building bridges; not only building bridges but building together because it's part of our economic renewal. We can no longer be fighting one another if we're going to survive in what has been termed the "global economy." Also, as we see the forces of North American free trade on the horizon, it's time we did work together.

What has this government also done? If you look at the whole range of what has happened in labour and in business, this government has put more money into training, because we know a trained workforce is what is going to help us in the future.

We've also put money into the Ontario Development Corp so that industries can expand not only their market share but they can also expand their industries.

This goes along with everything else we're doing. We're helping the business community to expand its markets, we're helping the business community to upgrade its machinery and we're supplying training so that the workforce will be what we consider one of the best in the world. We're doing that, and now we're promoting a partnership, and that partnership has to begin in the workplace.

This legislation alone is not going to be the panacea. It's not going to be everything to everyone, but it is a step in the right direction. That step has to be treating working people as people and allowing them to have a right not only to say what goes on in their company but also to be in on the decision-making powers.

As far as votes on contracts are concerned, whenever there's a collective agreement negotiated, it's always a tentative agreement and it gets taken back to the membership, much as we saw on the referendum vote last week, where there was a tentative deal struck and it was sent back to the people to ratify. That's what happens in a contract. If the members turn down the tentative deal, then there is possible strike action, but not with the first contract.

What happens in the first-contract deal most of the time is that the employees are taken to the limit as far as the negotiation process is concerned, and sometimes they're forced to go out the door and have to be on strike for a first contract. This strike is usually the pinnacle of whether or not this union is going to survive and whether some of the members are going to survive and continue to be working in their workplace.

Once a contract has been signed, it's the enforcement of the contract that becomes the important part, where both sides have agreed to a contract and both sides can live with that contract. It's unfortunate that people believe that because of union arm-twisting, people will vote one way and not another. That's an image I have from a Sylvester Stallone movie called F.I.S.T. I think that was the name of the movie where the union bosses were going around beating heads, and that's changed dramatically. In fact, now the most aggressive companies, the most successful companies, are those that have learned to work with their employees and work with their unions.

Let me tell you about Genesta and Abco in Guelph, where again they wished to expand their market and wished to make production improvements so that production will increase. The first people the management went to were the union members and the union executive. They talked about it and they decided on a course of action to take so they could improve their productivity, and the union was in agreement with this.

Also, when talking with the president of the union, he was mentioning negotiations that were coming up. They realize the economic downturn, they realize the recession and they know they can't go out asking for the world. They're willing to work with business, work with their managers and work with their owners to make sure there are no work stoppages, and also to realize that they are a part of what is happening in the workplace.

Many times in the past, from different factories and different companies that I've visited, it was easy to see those that had the least amount of strife in the workplace. Grievances were fewer in the workplaces where management and union had dialogue. Arbitration cases were lower, strike action was lower.

This all comes down to being able to talk with your employees, being able to make that leap of faith, so-called, so that we're not always going to be at each other's throats. The time for conflict in the workplace has ended. The time for building bridges, the time for reconciliation, the time for building a strong economy is here. It's now. If we don't seize the opportunity, we'll be lost. We'll be left behind by more progressive countries such as Germany, Japan and European countries, which are recognizing the importance and the knowledge of their working people. These are the countries we compete with.

As my colleague said before, a person in Buffalo said he voted for Clinton because Mr Clinton is going to guarantee there will be a law that if he ever goes on strike, his job will not be replaced.

It's happening all over. It's going through North America. People are demanding a more democratic society. That democratic society does not end as soon as you enter the workplace. That democratic society has to be included in the workplace, where people have a right to say what is going on with their lives within the workplace. Just because a person punches a clock doesn't mean he leaves his life as soon as he enters the workplace or leaves the workplace.

What goes on inside a workplace often contributes to what goes on in the home. If you have a day at work where you're always being hassled or if there's a problem going on, union work, or something is getting you down, or management is coming down on you, then it's only natural that when you leave the workplace and go home, those troubles, those pressures, are still with you. Sometimes they can be manifested in ways that I'd rather not speak about right now.

We look at the history of what has happened as far as labour law is concerned and we listen to the rhetoric. We can go back in history to the child labour laws. Let's go back to the child labour laws and listen to the rhetoric, because it hasn't changed. The business community, the third party, the opposition, are all saying the same thing: that it's going to drive business out of this community, it's going to drive it to the States, it's going to drive it to the other provinces. That was back in the 1800s.

Let's look again at what's been happening. How many auto workers were on strike, how many beatings were on the picket line when they were fighting for the eight-hour day? That's something I wish I had again, Mr Speaker, just in passing.

I must say, the struggle working people have gone through over the years, not only to gain some recognition but to gain some respect and to gain that little bit of democracy in the workplace, that's the key for me right there, the right to be able to participate freely in a democratic system within the workplace. There's nothing that irks me more than the autocratic way workplaces have been operating, where the machines and the employees are one and the same. It's time that changed.

It's time that Bill 40 was endorsed and embraced by all parties, endorsed and embraced because it is the right way to go, because it brings dignity and democracy to the workplace. It also is something this government has said it is going to do; that is, protect working people. I believe that as a government we've been doing that.

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

The House adjourned at 1800.