Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SERVICES FOR THE HEARING-IMPAIRED

Mr Curling: I want to speak briefly today about the need for a regional resource centre for the deaf and hard of hearing of northeastern Ontario.

Presently, travel distances for clients of the Canadian Hearing Society in northeastern Ontario can be as much as 800 kilometres, and travel to the society's facilities in Sudbury can take as long as 12 hours in inclement weather. These distances make it very difficult, and sometimes impossible, for the deaf and hard of hearing to access programs and services which may require training periods of up to 12 weeks.

A regional resource centre, with space for short-term residency, would help fill the enormous service gap for the deaf and hard of hearing that exists in northeastern Ontario.

I would like also to take a moment to commend Doris Schwar, Ruth Fulks, Mr Bill Ross, Mr Graydon and Lions International for their work and support of this project proposal.

The Canadian Hearing Society's northeastern life skills and literacy program also deserves special mention. The program provides deaf and hard-of-hearing adults with an opportunity to master American sign language, learn literacy and numeracy skills and interact with both deaf and hearing communities.

These are valuable services; a regional resource centre would ensure that they would be available to all who required them throughout northeastern Ontario. They deserve the full support of the government.

Mr Hugh Doig from Sudbury is also here in the west gallery. I would like to thank members very much.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Arnott: I am rising today to express my profound, in fact grave, concern about the government's radical proposal to amend the Ontario Labour Relations Act. The Minister of Labour's discussion paper on proposed labour law amendments means that the worst nightmare of every small business person has come true. The NDP government wants to make it easy for unions to gain a foothold in the workplace of every business, large and small, and once there, to give them the power to dictate the terms of surrender.

These proposals are unacceptable to the people of my riding. Never before in the history of Ontario has a government been so blatantly antibusiness, so callous and contemptuous in its disregard of the need for ongoing job creation and so blind to the threatening spectre of militant trade unionism. In Wellington county small business people, many of whom work 60 to 80 hours per week, risk their capital. The visionaries, the entrepreneurs, people who strive for excellence, people who create the jobs we need -- the business people of Wellington -- feel besieged by this government.

This government is proceeding with this initiative at the worst possible time in the economic cycle. When business people are looking for a positive expression from this government, any positive expression of confidence in the future, when they are looking for a lifeline, they are being thrown an anvil. The Minister of Labour should announce today that he is shelving his proposed reform of the Ontario Labour Relations Act and extend business people that lifeline.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr Johnson: At this time of the year, we as individuals stop to reflect on our past accomplishments, and certainly this government in the province of Ontario is stopping to reflect on its past accomplishments this year. I am very proud to be a part of this government.

Ontario is in the worst recession it has seen in 60 years. This is not the fault of the present government, but it is a situation this government has had to deal with. It has had to make some very serious and difficult decisions. These decisions have made sure that the people in Ontario, those who are most vulnerable, will not suffer through this very difficult time.

These decisions are the sorts of decisions I am not certain other governments would have made. Certainly neither the Tories nor the Liberals have had to govern in a time as difficult as the time we find ourselves in right now. I think this government has managed very well. It has done some things that other governments, I have no doubt, would not have done. As I said earlier, people are not suffering as a result of the very serious and important decisions this government has had to make.

It is true we find ourselves in a deficit situation, but that situation is indeed necessary to ensure that this government survives this difficult recession. We have next year to look forward to. At this point I would just like to say merry Christmas to all those people in the province of Ontario.

FAIR TAX COMMISSION

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I have examined with great interest the document entitled Community Education and Consultation Program from the Fair Tax Commission. This NDP government speaks of "distortions" in the knowledge of Ontarians and of need to "avoid working from incorrect assumptions." These words and the words that follow are very confusing. They are judgemental and perhaps worrisome. New spin words such as "developmental strategies, animator teams, role-playing, public education methodologies, trickle-up effects, democratization of information, consultative relationships, animation projects, the recruitment of community leadership, participatory research, targeted constituencies, animator coaching" -- I could go on and on. This is all to be tied together by electronic mail, file transferring and conferencing, the cost of which will be staggering.

The people of Ontario to this point have been led to believe the tax commissioners and work groups were chosen specifically because they represent a broad cross-section of Ontarians. May I ask, does the NDP government plan to use this new group of animators to shape and direct the activities of what has been described to this point to the Ontario public as a non-political body charged with reviewing a most vital part of democratic society, the right of a government to tax its citizens? Judgement on this matter, Mr Speaker, I leave to you and to the people of Ontario.

1340

ZEBRA MUSSELS

Mr McLean: My statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources. The minister is no doubt aware of recent reports that zebra mussels have found their way into Ontario's inland waterways and now pose a threat to a substantial number of water treatment plant intake pipes, public swimming beaches, navigational buoys, fishing nets, boat hulls and hydro plant pipes, to name but a few of the areas.

In April 1991 the standing committee on resources development released its Report on Exotic Species in Ontario. This report contained 30 recommendations, including: MNR to implement measures to prevent the spread of zebra mussels from live bait collection, sale and use; MNR inspection of boats entering Ontario to ensure zebra mussels are not being transferred in live bait wells; MNR to work closely with boating and marina industries to ensure facilities and services are in place to reduce the risks of transferring zebra mussels; provincial government ministries to install signs at boat ramps explaining measures boaters can take to reduce the spread of zebra mussels.

It is my understanding that the minister has not implemented any of these recommendations. I would suggest that if he had acted on the resources development committee report, we would not have zebra mussels threatening to destroy Ontario's entire inland water system. Because of the minister's inaction, the people of Ontario have mussels in places they have never seen.

CONSTITUENCY OFFICE STAFF

Mr Fletcher: It is a pleasure for me to rise today and talk about the people who work with me in my constituency office: Heather Johnston, Susan Neath and Mary Westley.

Heather and her husband operate a farm outside the city of Guelph. She puts in a lot of time working in my office, and also working on the farm. Susan Neath, who also works in my office in Guelph, is a very dedicated worker. She has worked with small business many times and is married to a representative from the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. Mary Westley, a single parent, works in my office and takes care of her 17-year-old son, and has dedicated so much time to the office and to the people of Guelph.

Peter Cameron works with me in Toronto. He is an activist and was also a member of the Ontario Public Interest Research Group at one time and is a very good friend of Mr Ralph Nader. Virginia Wilson is an ex-reporter with the Daily Mercury in Guelph and has dedicated more time than I can ever say.

I cannot do the work I am supposed to do without these people. Without their effort and dedication I would be nothing as far as the people of Guelph are concerned. They service not only the community of Guelph but parts of the ministry I am connected with.

I wish them all a very merry Christmas and a very good new year. As I said, without them I would be nowhere.

PAY EQUITY

Ms Poole: Today marks the first anniversary since the Minister of Labour made his big, splashy announcement about the NDP's plans for pay equity.

One year ago today, on December 18, the government announced its intention to extend pay equity to 420,000 women who had not previously benefited from pay equity.

At the time of the announcement the Minister of Labour said, "There will probably be legislation in the spring." He was not too sure of what was happening, but that was the general direction. The spring came and went, and there was no legislation. There was no direction and no new policy announcement. The fall came and went, and today it has been one full year since he made that promise.

Part of the problem was that the Premier himself seemed to be quite confused. He did not seem to understand that his government had not done what it said it was going to do. The Premier's own newsletter misled people by claiming that pay equity benefits had already been extended to the 420,000 women. The provincial secretary of the NDP sent a letter to thousands of people which mistakenly claimed the NDP had implemented pay equity.

Let's be perfectly clear. It has been one year, and for one year there was no action. I would like today to send this candle over to the Premier to mark the first anniversary and say it is about time his government acted on pay equity.

HOME SHARING

Mr Jackson: Almost a year ago, I stood in this House to ask the Minister of Housing to confirm that he was going to continue to fund home sharing programs in Ontario. Many months went by before the money was finally allocated, but for a one-year term only.

Home sharing helps reduce the social isolation that seniors experience living at home, while providing safe, affordable housing alternatives through intensifying existing housing stock. Having started as a pilot project in 1985, the programs link those needing accommodation with participating individuals with extra space in their own homes. Local home sharing agencies co-ordinate meetings and provide follow-up counselling services. These agencies have to date assisted more than 4,000 households to find new and affordable accommodation.

The recent consultation paper entitled The Redirection of Long-Term Care and Support Services in Ontario stated this government's intention to direct resources towards those services which assist the elderly and the physically challenged to live independently and with dignity. Yet home sharing agencies have now been told by the NDP Ministry of Housing that there are no guarantees their programs shall continue to receive further funding.

The NPD public relations road is paved with good intentions. I call on the Housing minister to act on her government's intentions and continue to maintain funding for home sharing programs to prevent the elderly and physically challenged in Ontario from having to experience the personal ordeal of being unable to live dignified and independent lives in our society.

BOB SUGDEN

Mr Christopherson: It is with great pleasure that I rise in the House today to offer my congratulations to the newly elected president of the Society of Directors of Municipal Recreation of Ontario, Mr Bob Sugden. Mr Sugden is the first Hamiltonian to serve in this distinguished position.

The Society of Directors of Municipal Recreation of Ontario represents municipal recreationists in Ontario, with a goal to promote, enhance and facilitate recreation as an essential service. On November 9, 1991, the society adopted an action agenda that will improve the quality of life in our municipalities.

The Society of Directors of Municipal Recreation of Ontario is committed to (1) community greening and enhancing natural environments, (2) active living and wellness to combat rising health costs, (3) combating the loneliness felt by older citizens and cultural diversity, (4) building strong families affected by the economic necessity of both parents working and by being single-parent families and (5) beating alienation and delinquency of youth in our cities.

The society is striving to set up an office this year with both public and private sector support. Our Minister of Tourism and Recreation has spoken to Mr Sugden and has indicated a strong willingness to work with the society.

On a personal note, I have had the pleasure of working with Bob for five years, and I am confident he will serve the Society of Directors of Municipal Recreation of Ontario with distinction.

I invite all members of this House to join me in wishing Mr Sugden and the Society of Directors of Municipal Recreation of Ontario success in achieving their important objectives, which will benefit all citizens in Ontario.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MEETING ON THE ECONOMY / RÉUNION SUR L'ÉCONOMIE

Hon Mr Rae: Members of this Legislature and the people of Ontario are painfully aware that Canada has in this year experienced the effects of a devastating recession and its accompanying unemployment, bankruptcies and dislocation. The country is still in an economic deep freeze. Every one of us here is personally familiar with the effect on families, neighbours and friends. Ontario has been especially hard hit; 80% of the jobs lost in this country in this recession have been lost in Ontario. The consequences will be with us for some time, even when the economy starts to recover.

Many of the problems we are facing are larger than the capacity of any individual government to address. There is a clear need for leaders to search for common ground and work towards recovery and reconstruction.

Since early in our mandate, I have been calling on the Prime Minister to convene a first ministers' conference on the economy precisely for the purpose of finding remedies and solutions to these economic challenges. Members will be aware that tomorrow, the premiers and leaders of the territories are assembling in Ottawa for a luncheon meeting with the Prime Minister to begin the process of putting Canadians back to work.

I want to share with the members of this Legislature today my views of what we should try to achieve at tomorrow's meeting.

Tout d'abord, nous devons concentrer nos efforts pour en arriver à une entente sur certaines initiatives spécifiques et immédiates visant à créer des emplois. Nous devons faire tout en notre possible pour que les Canadiens et les Ontariens réintègrent le marché du travail. J'ai discuté avec certains premiers ministres et je crois qu'il est juste de dire qu'ils partagent cette opinion et cet objectif. Ensemble, nous proposerons un certain nombre d'idées à la réunion.

1350

I want to say a few words about one of the short-term proposals that this government will make tomorrow. I have already said we believe we must put in place measures that get people back to work. I will be sharing with the premiers and the Prime Minister a proposal to allow Canadians to withdraw part of their RRSP funds, without paying income tax, for home renovation or for a down payment on a home.

If we can agree to implement this proposal quickly, it will have early, positive impacts on important industries in this province and across the country. Both the Canadian Real Estate Association and construction unions have called for a similar use of RRSP funds to provide immediate economic stimulation.

It is an initiative that would create employment. With about $100 billion in RRSP funds in Canada, even a small infusion of these savings in construction and home improvement would create tens of thousands of jobs.

Other proposals, on capital works, on infrastructure, on getting people off welfare and back into the workforce and on the need for an industrial strategy, will be made as well. We want to encourage a serious discussion of practical steps we can take to make the economy as strong as it can be.

As much as I hope for some progress tomorrow on specific initiatives, it is not simply enough for a dozen elected leaders to get together for a Christmas lunch. There are major economic issues that cannot be addressed at one short meeting. Ontario continues to call for a full-fledged first ministers' conference on the economy to be held early in the new year. Many other governments share this objective. We will be pressing hard tomorrow to persuade the Prime Minister to agree.

In closing, I would like to assure members of the House and the people of Ontario that I will be doing everything I can to achieve a positive and constructive outcome tomorrow. I will want to reiterate that a full-fledged first ministers' conference on the economy must be held early next year.

I regret that Premier Bourassa will not be attending tomorrow's meeting. I will continue to encourage him to attend future meetings. The economic issues that the country must resolve require the participation of all premiers and the support of all the people of Canada.

This is only a first step. I hope the Prime Minister shares my view and that of the other premiers about the importance of demonstrating the collective determination of this country's political leaders to manage and improve the economy for the benefit of all Canadians.

PAY EQUITY

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I have the honour, together with my colleague the Chairman of Management Board, of introducing amendments to the Pay Equity Act of 1987. By doing so, this government is fulfilling its strong commitment to correct the historic and systemic undervaluation of women's work.

These amendments will introduce new methods of comparison not possible under the current act and will clarify current provisions. They will extend the coverage of the act to well over 420,000 women not currently served by the legislation.

The Pay Equity Act has changed Ontario's workplace culture by legislating against the long-standing wage discrimination experienced by women workers. Members know that the Pay Equity Act has worked remarkably well for working women. Considerable success has been achieved under the act by means of the job-to-job comparison method of implementing wage equity.

Last year I announced that the government would consult on the content of these amendments. Over the past year we have met with many groups to refine the government's approach to pay equity. We recognized that other methods can and should be used for attaining pay equity in situations where job-to-job comparisons cannot be made, such as in all-female or female-predominant workplaces.

Therefore, the first amendment I am presenting today frames in law the proportional value comparison method. Proportional value comparisons, like all other pay equity comparisons, must be based on evaluating a composite of skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions. The proportional value method permits comparisons of the relative worth to an employer of female and male job classes in situations where job-to-job comparisons are difficult.

There are many ways of making proportional value comparisons. Large employers may want to use what is known as the wage-line method, while smaller employers can use simpler methods. Whatever method is chosen, the bottom line is that proportional value comparisons must achieve a fair assignment of wages in proportion to the value of work performed by female and male job classes in an employer's establishment.

My officials have estimated that more than 340,000 women will be able to attain pay equity through the use of proportional value comparisons. Most of these women are employed in the private sector. With the enactment of this amendment, and other measures to be announced today, 1.05 million working women will be entitled to benefit from the Pay Equity Act.

The other amendments I will introduce today are of an administrative nature, to refine measures in the original act.

The most important of these will protect pay equity plans when companies are sold, transferred or restructured. Simply put, the purchaser of a business also acquires an existing pay equity plan. This measure ensures that women will not see their pay equity rights vanish or diminish because of workplace transformations over which they have no control.

Another new measure strengthens the role of review officers who investigate complaints under the act. Review officers will now be able to issue corrective orders on a broader range of matters. These new powers respond to needs that only became evident after the act had operated for several years.

Another administrative measure obliges private sector employers to post a sign informing workers of their rights under the act and where they can go for advice or assistance if they feel they are not being respected.

No doubt there will be those who say that these difficult economic times are not the time to extend pay equity. Let me respond in two ways.

First, these amendments will not increase the current obligation of employers to devote at least 1% of their previous year's payroll to pay equity adjustments. Many employers, recognizing that some of their women employees would not be covered under the existing act, have clearly accepted and voluntarily added proportional value comparisons to their pay equity plans. We applaud their efforts.

Second, this government has resolved to right the historic undervaluing and undercompensation of work performed by women. The government upholds fairness for women as a right and not a luxury. This is especially important today because recessions hit the lowest-paid workers the hardest.

The amendments I am presenting are only part of today's good news for Ontario's working women. My colleague the Chairman of Management Board has much to add concerning this government's commitment to pay equity for workers in the public sector and broader public sector.

This government has pioneered in this fundamentally important area of social policy. Our progress is unmatched elsewhere. I believe history will record the achievement of pay equity as a landmark accomplishment by this government. It is an accomplishment that will have enormous positive impact on succeeding generations of working women in this province. We are ensuring that as many working women as possible are able to benefit through the amendments being introduced here today.

1400

Hon Mr Silipo: I am proud to join my colleague the Minister of Labour in announcing amendments that will extend pay equity to hundreds of thousands of Ontario women whose work continues to be undervalued and underpaid. I also note the work done on this issue in preparing these amendments by our colleague the minister responsible for women's issues.

The current Pay Equity Act allows for job-to-job comparisons, which will be enhanced by proportional value comparison methods, as outlined by the Minister of Labour. But these two measures will leave some 70,000 to 80,000 women who are in workplaces who do not have male job classes that can be used for pay equity comparisons. They are among the lowest paid workers in our society, because work done by women has traditionally been undervalued and underpaid.

Our government made a commitment to the people of Ontario to right this historic wrong. Today, we are meeting that commitment.

The Minister of Labour has told you about the proportional value comparison method, which will affect many women both in the public and private sectors. I want to tell you about the proxy comparison method and how it will affect women, who are among the lowest paid workers in Ontario's public sector.

Proxy comparisons will be used by broader public sector organizations that cannot use job-to-job or proportional value comparisons because of a lack of male job classes. In the proxy comparison method, female jobs in a female dominant workplace are compared to male jobs in another organization that provides a similar range of services. Regulations on methods for proxy comparisons will be developed in the next several months.

Organizations that need to use the proxy method are generally those that provide health and community services, including home care agencies, some libraries, rape crisis centres, child care centres, shelters for battered women and nursing homes, among others. Many women working in these organizations are not able to use the job-to-job or proportional value comparison methods to achieve pay equity because of the absence of male job classes at their workplaces.

We recognized in last spring's budget that these publicly funded organizations will require assistance to meet their pay equity commitments. My colleague the Treasurer will announce in the near future details on funding that will begin to close the wage gap between male and female broader public sector workers. The funding will be based on a commitment to pay 100% of the cost of proxy for non-profit broader public sector employers.

Resolving pay equity concerns through the amendments we are proposing should ease other pressures on government, which I will now address.

We will be introducing amendments to the Pay Equity Act, the Public Service Act and the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. These amendments will enhance the Ontario government's ability to manage the size of its workforce. Decisions by the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal and the Ontario Public Service Labour Relations Tribunal have created the potential for large numbers of workers in the broader public sector to become employees of the Ontario public service.

In many situations where no male comparators exist, pay equity office review officers and the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal have found that a larger organization is the employer for pay equity purposes. In some cases, review offices have found the province to be the employer.

Another means of naming the province as the employer is through the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. This act allows the Public Service Labour Relations Tribunal to decide if individuals are crown employees, which gives them the right to bargain collectively with the crown. The tribunal has also claimed the right to decide whether crown employees are also public servants. This is possible because nowhere in the Public Service Act does it say that appointment to the Ontario public service is solely the right of the government.

The introduction of legislation to implement proportional value and proxy pay equity methods that allow women to find male comparators for their jobs resolves the need for government-as-employer litigation as a means of achieving pay equity.

These amendments will also place an important responsibility, the ability to determine the size of the public service, in the hands of government. The amendments will allow us to manage the size of the public service therefore.

In closing, I am truly honoured to join my colleague the Minister of Labour, and as I indicated my colleague the minister responsible for women's issues, in introducing amendments that fulfil this government's commitment to giving Ontario's working women the justice they so richly deserve.

RESPONSES

MEETING ON THE ECONOMY

Mr Conway: On behalf of the Liberal opposition, I would like to briefly respond to the first minister's statement regarding tomorrow's meeting in Ottawa. We certainly all want to wish the member for York South our very best wishes as he goes to dine with Brian Mulroney and others in the national capital.

I must say I have listened for some months now to the very strident tones of the leader of the New Democratic government in Ontario about what needed to be done, saying he was quite prepared to lead the march on Ottawa because of course the economy was in a bad way and a very substantive adjustment was required. So it was with some anticipation that I came today to hear what specific agenda, indeed perhaps even an agenda for the people of Ontario and for Canada, the leader of the NDP government in Ontario might be taking to lunch and tea with Brian Mulroney.

But what do we have? By all accounts and on the account of the NDP in Ontario, it is going to be very thin gruel tomorrow in Ottawa, because after 14 months, we do not have any of the Agenda for People, and it is replete with specifics about the New Democratic socialist order, but we have merely a proposal from Mr Rae and the NDP in Ontario, a proposal that has been made in several other places across the country, that the federal government ought to take its money and through a change in the RRSP arrangements provide an opportunity for Canadians to apply those funds for home building and home renovations.

Mr Stockwell: Earth-shattering.

Mr Conway: As my friend the member for Etobicoke West says, that is really something less than earth-shattering. That suggestion has been made by a whole host of other people. I ask my friend the leader of the NDP, surely there is more, because if one looks at this proposal, not only is it not his own but it really involves spending overwhelmingly federal dollars. I would have thought the Ontario NDP had some specific proposals of its own, committing itself to domestic initiatives in Ontario, but we have nothing but this suggestion that Ottawa ought to amend its income tax policy to the benefit of the provinces from sea to sea.

I suppose we ought not to be surprised that in the democratic socialist world in which we now find ourselves, sharing is really a matter of the Premier wanting to share his thirst with Brian Mulroney's beer.

That is clever and quite ingenious, but I think the people of York South and Renfrew North and 128 other electoral districts had expected some initiative, some leadership, some specific made-in-Ontario, made-for-Ontario commitments to get this economy moving again. They would have expected that a government so prepared to abandon its pension policy of the past, a government so willing to abandon its auto insurance policy, a government prepared to abandon so much of what it stood for in the past, would as part of this new day have something specific and helpful to take to tea at 24 Sussex Drive. As Joe Clark might ask rhetorically, "Is this the totality of your commitment?" If it is, the people of Ontario have been bamboozled by our Oxfordian friend.

PAY EQUITY

Mr Offer: I would like to respond to the statement of the Minister of Labour. It was just one year ago today that the government said it was going to extend pay equity. A year has passed without any action whatsoever and there is a statement today without any chance of legislation being passed into law this year.

But this comes as really no surprise to this side of the House. we have a householder by the Premier, who stated months earlier that they have extended pay equity to cover 420,000 women who work in jobs that have not yet been covered. We have a letter from the provincial secretary of the NDP government, Jill Marzetti, who has stated that the NDP government has extended pay equity. Their statements are still wrong, They are just statements. The statement today by the Minister of Labour still does not carry legislation this year. What we are looking for is real action. The government should get on with the job and introduce some legislation. Let's see it become law this year.

1410

MEETING ON THE ECONOMY

Mr Harris: I too wish to respond to the Premier's statement. I too wish to wish the Premier well on behalf of all Canadians as he heads off to Ottawa tomorrow. Let me also say that I agree entirely with the comments made by the member for Renfrew North and let me add a few of my own. After a year of calling for a first ministers conference, after 20 years of having all the answers and after the Agenda for People, that one specific proposal, the changes to the RRSP legislation -- which, I want to be clear, I am not opposed to -- as the member for Renfrew North has pointed out has already been made by all three parties in Ottawa and by the Minister of Finance.

Earlier today, I understand Mr McKenna came up with two. The Premier agrees with Mr McKenna's incentive for new home buyers. I do not know if the Premier will agree as well with Mr McKenna's impassioned plea, his number two item, for a balanced budget. We will see how that discussion goes at 24 Sussex tomorrow as they have lunch.

What really bothers me, and I think what bothers most objective observers of this government, is that it has spent all its money -- it is all gone -- and then some, and now it is suggesting the solution is to kickstart the home industry after it brought in retroactive rent control legislation that threw thousands of construction workers out of work, and after it took a 180-degree turn and broke its word on the Development Charges Act, which can add up to $20,000 to the price of a home. They are now asking the federal government, which has no money, as they know, to defer future income to help overcome the increased costs of housing that their policies have brought in. Does the Premier think the 200,000 or so workers who have been laid off in the manufacturing sector are going to want to buy a home in Ontario, regardless of whether or not they have RRSPs?

I think of other legislation the government has brought forward that is forcing people out of work, other legislation and directions it has taken which, as I have said many times, are 180 degrees in the wrong direction and that are causing problems, loss of confidence, loss of jobs and loss of any buyers for homes, who want to buy in Ontario but who do not want to be locked into Ontario because they do not see a bright future as long as this government's policies are being put forward.

On top of that, the government's policies are increasing substantially the cost of housing in this province, whether it is the labour proposals, the Development Charges Act or some of the other items it is bringing forward. Yes, this proposal that the federal government wants to do anyway will help overcome some but not all of the increased costs of housing this government has forced on the people who want to buy a home in this province.

Finally, because other members of my caucus wish to respond, I want to say this: I do congratulate the Premier for overriding the Minister of Housing. In response to question after question from the member for Mississauga South -- she has to represent all of Mississauga, I know that, but her riding is Mississauga South -- about whether housing and construction jobs and home ownership were a priority, the minister said, "No, not a priority for me, not a priority for my government, not at all, not at all." I congratulate the Premier for at least overriding his own government's policy and going to Brian Mulroney and asking him to help compensate for the disgraceful policies of his own government here in Ontario.

PAY EQUITY

Mrs Witmer: I question this government's sincerity to equality for women. First of all, I am extremely offended when it refers to "working women." I would like the government to know that all women in this province work, whether it is inside the home or outside the home. If the government really wants to eliminate discrimination, I think the terminology needs to be changed immediately.

I would also like to draw attention to the fact that they talk about redressing the wage discrimination faced by working women. I know that what is meant here are women who work outside the home. I would like to indicate to them that they still discriminates against women because they have not redressed the discrimination that is faced by the workers in the private day care sector.

JOEY SMALLWOOD

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Speaker, I think there is unanimous consent for the three parties to express their condolences on the passing of Joey Smallwood, the former Premier of Newfoundland.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Speaker, I know there are not too many occasions when I can safely say that I think I speak for all members of the House. Perhaps this is one, not that I want to preclude other members from speaking on this occasion.

We all woke up this morning to the news of the passing of a remarkable Canadian, the last living Father of Confederation, and it is perhaps only fitting and appropriate that we take a few moments to reflect on his remarkable contribution to the life of his native Newfoundland and to the life of Canada.

Joey Smallwood was a truly remarkable Canadian, someone whose wit, love of life, imagination, drive and sheer ability inspired the citizens of his own province of Newfoundland and came to inspire Canadians from coast to coast. Joey, as he is known now and will be known for all time, was someone who left school as a teenager, became a journalist, a labour organizer, a political organizer and the leader of his political movement in Newfoundland, someone who led the fight for Newfoundland's entry into Confederation -- a fight which was very closely and hotly contested in Newfoundland in the post-Second World War era -- and who became the first Premier of Newfoundland and then went on to serve as Premier for a great many years.

His life was marked always by controversy. He certainly was not one who resisted a fight. His life was one that was marked by deep commitment, by great and good humour, and by his passion not only for Newfoundland but for Canada.

I never had the opportunity to meet Joey Smallwood, but like thousands of my generation, I knew him from the benefit of television, heard him speak and have had occasion to speak with many who knew him and served with him in public life. Joey Smallwood of course is seen by the people of Newfoundland first and foremost as a Newfoundlander, but I want them to know that we in Ontario see him as a great Newfoundlander and as a great Canadian as well.

On this occasion, at this moment in our history, it is perhaps important that we reflect on the fact that someone like Joey Smallwood can start out in life with a vision and with a dream, can carry that through with the kind of commitment, the kind of courage, the kind of gusto that he had, and that his inspiration is one that came not only to Newfoundlanders but to all Canadians.

On behalf of the government of Ontario and on behalf of the citizens of Ontario, I want to convey to the government and the citizens of Newfoundland, and to the Smallwood family, our deepest condolences on the passing of Joey Smallwood, and at the same time say that at age 90, this is a moment not only of mourning but of celebration, a celebration of a truly remarkable life.

Monsieur le Président, c'est une occasion, naturellement, pour le souvenir, pour la commémoration d'une vie absolument remarquable. C'est une perte non seulement pour la population de Terre-Neuve mais pour tout le Canada. En même temps, nous célébrons cette vie remarquable, cette vie de M. Smallwood, et nous partageons de beaux souvenirs de sa contribution absolument unique à la vie canadienne.

It is a pleasure for me to say, on behalf of the people of this province, that we share in the loss but also in the sense of wonder and awe at the life Joey lived.

1420

Mr Conway: On behalf of my colleagues, I want to join with the Premier and the leader of the third party in expressing our condolences to the Smallwood family and the people of Newfoundland today on the passing of a very famous Canadian.

It was once written that history was the record of the encounter of character and circumstance. By that standard, I think we can say Joey Smallwood was a historical character of very considerable significance.

I well remember, as a young boy growing up in Upper Canada, watching those early days of executive federalism when television was bringing into the homes of Canadians those first ministers' meetings, one more of which we will have tomorrow. I have a feeling that tomorrow's meeting will not live up to the energy of some of those days 20 years ago, and by that I simply mean I remember very distinctly what those conferences were like, with W. A. C. Bennett at one end of the table and Joey Smallwood at the other. It was lively and energetic in a way that politics have ceased to be in our day.

Joey Smallwood was, as the Premier rightly observed, a man of many talents and rich and varied experience. He was, among other things, a pamphleteer of some very considerable success. We do not have pamphleteers in politics today in the way Joey Smallwood was a pamphleteer 40 to 50 years ago. I have always thought that Joey Smallwood, rather like Aberhart of Alberta and Caouette of Quebec, was part of that group of politicians who really understood the mass media in the modern age.

Joey's use of radio during those great Confederation debates of the late 1940s was a model of how to take one's cause to the people. He recruited to politics in Newfoundland a very rich, high-powered and high-quality group, some of whom, I gather, were on the national radio service of the Canadian Broadcasting Corp this morning reminiscing about what it was like to have served in government with the late Mr Smallwood.

For anyone who has an interest, there is a wonderful set of stories told in the very analytical and dispassionate memoirs of Jack Pickersgill about what it was like to have been a citizen in Newfoundland in the 1950s when, by all intents and purposes, Joey Smallwood was the government of Newfoundland and Jack Pickersgill was the government of Canada for Newfoundland, a fascinating recollection of life and politics in a different era.

I certainly want to agree with the Premier in observing today that Mr Smallwood brought to politics a very passionate commitment about what he thought was the public good of the people of his country; that is, the old Dominion of Newfoundland. In these days of the early 1990s, we should recall the nature of that debate and the rather divided opinion surrounding whether that dominion should be brought into the Dominion of Canada. It was a very heated debate, and one can still encounter in Newfoundland people who felt that the debate was wrongly decided. Those of us in Upper Canada feel, I think, that it was rightly decided. As a result of Mr Smallwood's commitment and statesmanship, this country of ours was truly a dominion from sea to shining sea.

Again, I think it is important to state that Smallwood brought a legacy of real character to politics. He certainly was not without controversy. One thinks of some of his economic initiatives. Much has been written and much will be written as the years unfold. One thinks of what it must have been like in a cabinet where Mr Smallwood took the doctrine of primus inter pares very seriously. That was not always easy for people like Mr Crosbie, who I gather is fulsome in his analysis of that very colourful part of our political past.

As the Premier rightly observed, we do not just mourn today; we celebrate a happy, successful, lively and full life. Those of us in politics today have much to learn from the visionary commitment of the late Joseph R. Smallwood.

Mr Jackson: Briefly, on behalf of our caucus and our leader, I would like to join the Premier and the Liberal Party in paying tribute to the late Joey Smallwood. He passed away six days short of his 91st birthday, a great Canadian born under a constitutional monarchy. As a boy growing up, he developed his own sense of history and belonging to the British nation and yet saw fit to encourage his jurisdiction to become a province and to join the great Dominion of Canada. It is well known that he managed the entire campaign in his province and it was a very narrow and close vote.

History will show that he was the most passionate politician of his time. It is a title he wore honourably and that was richly deserved right up until the stroke which befell him in 1985. I had the rare privilege, unlike the Premier, of having an opportunity to meet Joey Smallwood, and for the record I want to assure him it was not at a Liberal fund-raiser. I can recall he was probably one of the most disarming and electric of politicians I had ever met. His sheer presence, based on the reputation of his ability to debate under any number of circumstances was, as I say, legendary. It was a most memorable encounter.

He was, as has been stated for the record, a most passionate and devoted Canadian. During the debate on Meech Lake he was oft-times quoted by his successor Premier, Clyde Wells. Just for purposes of the House, I might briefly read just a short statement that Premier Smallwood made as his vision of Canada. It is referenced in Peter Newman's book The Distemper of our Times. Smallwood is describing his very first encounter with a fresh, new Minister of Justice by the name of Trudeau:

"He said to me he wanted my views on the Constitution. So I told him, 'For Quebec, nothing. Nothing. I don't mean almost nothing, I mean nothing whatsoever. Quebec should have nothing that Prince Edward Island doesn't have, that Newfoundland doesn't have. But,' I said, 'for the French people in Canada, anywhere in Canada, everything. Everything. Everything that the English Canadians have. Rights, education, I mean everything.'"

Joey Smallwood's eloquent but brief description of our country spread equally among 10 provinces commends itself to our attention on the solemn occasion of his passing.

[Later]

1430

Hon Ms Churley: Mr Speaker, I know this is an unusual procedure, but I wonder if I, as a Newfoundlander and as someone who has met him, can have ëconsent to say just a few words very briefly about Mr Smallwood.

Agreed to.

Hon Ms Churley: I grew up hearing about Joey Smallwood. My grandmother, who was about the same age as Mr Smallwood, died a few years ago. I grew up and heard about Joey Smallwood all my life.

Joey Smallwood sat in my grandmother's kitchen in Old Perlican, Newfoundland, and convinced her she should vote for Confederation in 1948. I remember hearing lots and lots of stories about that visit. I also remember growing up and seeing in her kitchen -- she was also a very religious woman -- a picture of Jesus and, next to Jesus, one of Joey Smallwood. In her mind, I think they were equal.

Legend has it that in 1948 -- I am dating myself here -- when Joey was in Old Perlican and I had recently been born, he visited the hospital and, as politicians are known to kiss babies from time to time, Joey kissed me on that day.

I was very moved and very touched, and a lot of memories were brought back to me today. I too send my condolences to the people of Newfoundland and the Smallwood family.

[Later]

The Speaker: If I could draw the attention of all the members of the House for a moment, earlier we had an opportunity for several members to make very kind and generous and proper words about the passing of a former Premier and indeed a remarkable Canadian. We will provide a transcript of Hansard to the Smallwood family, and of course the best wishes from all members of the assembly go with it.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Much to my regret, I have discovered that another cabinet minister of the NDP government has lied. During the past week the constituents of the Ministry of Housing received a letter, which I have in my hand, which begins, "Dear Friend," and the body of which contained the following statement:

"Despite the opposition's efforts to block us, we've been busy following through on our commitments to you over this past year. We've created 5,000 new child care spaces and spent $30 million to raise the wages of child care workers in the private sector." I repeat, Mr Speaker: "the private sector."

These words are lies. They are unfounded and they are not true.

The Speaker: Could the member describe what her point of privilege is?

Mrs Y. O'Neill: Many workers, mostly women, in the private child care sector in this province, in Ottawa-Carleton and my riding deserve an apology.

The Speaker: That is not a point of privilege.

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

Hon Mr Laughren: Mr Speaker, it is with some regret that I rise on a point of personal privilege. Last night in this assembly, to confess, I was doing a little bit of heckling of a member opposite, which is normal course around here. In response to my heckling, the member for Burlington South accused me of being anti-Jewish.

I have been in this assembly 20 years and I enjoy rollicking and uncompromising political debate. I have been under the gun lots of time in this House and, partly because of the experience of being here a long time, I do not shake when I engage in debate. But I am shaking right now with anger, frustration and, quite frankly, I feel soiled.

I regret having to say this to the assembly, but I believe that to have allowed it to go by without comment would be in a strange way to passively condone it. I sent the member a note a few minutes ago, giving him the opportunity to withdraw or apologize and he chose to do neither. It is for that reason I have risen at this time.

The Speaker: To the member for Nickel Belt, I do not believe I was in the chamber at the time, nor was it reported to me by any other chair occupant. Indeed, I can speak for my colleagues who have the privilege of sitting as Speaker, that we try our best to maintain a language level in here that does not demean others and is not insulting.

Perhaps the member for Burlington South would like an opportunity to gain the floor.

Mr Jackson: Yes, Mr Speaker. This is a serious matter, and you are correct that you were not in the chamber. The House was not sitting at the time. The Treasurer and I did engage in a conversation which began with questions about the depth of his hatred for an individual member of this House and we engaged in a discussion where I raised the question, based on his comments about the member's wealth, profession and élitism.

The exchange did get heated, but I must say we did not have an occasion to complete that conversation. It would appear we now have. I regret that the statement was made. However, I am pleased that the Treasurer and I have been able to clear the air on the matter and we have discussed it with the member in question to whom he was heckling.

The Speaker: It is now time for oral questions.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Elston: Before I begin oral questions, might I ask for unanimous consent to have the Premier tell us what he knows of the circumstances around the GM plant announcements, since it is of major economic import for Ontario, and we could then have a chance to respond to the information he is privy to that the rest of us are not. May I have that unanimous consent?

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Hon Ms Gigantes: No.

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Speaker, let me make it clear I am not --

Mr Bradley: Evelyn says no.

Hon Mr Rae: No, no. I would not want to encourage anyone to say no. I just want to say to the member, I am not privy to any information other than what I have received via Canada NewsWire, which I would think the honourable member has access to as well. There has been some suggestion that I am privy to some other information. I have had no information with respect to this issue other than what has been received.

We are now monitoring Mr Stempel's press conference, and that is what is being looked at, but I have had no private conversations with Mr Stempel. In the only conversation I had with Mr Peapples yesterday, he said Mr Stempel will be making an announcement tomorrow and we will all have to see what it is. If the member wants me to read him the NewsWire report, I am quite happy to do that.

The Speaker: Perhaps now we could start question period.

Mr Bradley: Is there a rule against sticking out your tongue?

Mr Elston: No, that is not my first question.

Mr Speaker, I think perhaps we should get ourselves on the road today, although I must say it does concern me a great deal when upwards of 4,000 people are at risk of losing their jobs and the Premier of this province has no information about what is to occur.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Elston: Let me ask a question of the Premier on another subject. On December 10, 1991, the member for St Andrew-St Patrick tendered her resignation as Minister of Community and Social Services as a result of circumstances with which we are all familiar. Can the Premier identify the standards that allowed him to accept the resignation of that minister, although she declared she had done nothing wrong, but do not require him to expect and accept the resignation of the Minister of Northern Development, who has admitted she lied?

Hon Mr Rae: I thought the member was in fact going to ask me questions about GM. I hope someone is, because the issue is there.

Mr Stockwell: You don't know anything. What's the point?

Hon Mr Rae: We certainly do know some things about it. But if the member is not going to ask questions about General Motors --

Mr Eves: You want us to ask you questions about something you said you don't know anything about?

Hon Mr Rae: No. I am quite happy to respond to the question that was asked.

I would say to the honourable member that the circumstances surrounding the decision of the member for St Andrew-St Patrick are different from the ones involving the minister in question. The decision that was made by the honourable member for St Andrew-St Patrick was a decision that was made by her in light of the circumstances she was facing, which I think he knows something about, and I accepted her resignation with regret.

1440

Mr Elston: It seems unreasonable to me to expect the Premier to leave this topic by merely saying that when a minister decides he or she will resign, he will accept the resignation. In this situation we clearly have someone who said something that was incorrect and that has had a deleterious effect on the character of people about whom she has spoken publicly.

Does the Premier not regard that as an offence that does in fact remove the trust about which he spoke when he spoke publicly about firing the member for Welland-Thorold and the trust he said had to be earned daily as a minister of the crown? Does he not think that loss of trust in this case is enough for him to require the resignation?

Hon Mr Rae: I think in the circumstances the minister's apology is very clear. Judging from what I have heard from citizens across the province and indeed from many people in northern Ontario, the minister is doing a great deal to earn the trust of the people of this province every day.

Mr Elston: It is quite clear now the standard we are now speaking about is the standard line of the New Democratic Party of Ontario when it is confronted with opposition. Whether opposition politicians have materials which show they are doing something wrong to the province or whether somebody opposes a particular program of a ministry of this province, they attempt to do things to undermine the opposition publicly, either by sending the police to offices of opposition politicians or by declaring there is a prosecution in the offing against the people who oppose their position.

Will the Premier not confirm that this is the standard tactic of the New Democratic Party of Ontario and that it is undermining the democratic processes of this province by having a heavy hand around the throats of the free-speaking people of this province?

Hon Mr Rae: The member is quite wrong in his statement that this is the approach of the New Democratic Party. I do not think that is something which has a lot of credibility or believability out there. The notion that a democratically elected government, which is accountable and responsible to the Legislature every day, all the time, responding as frankly and as candidly as we can to the questions that have been posed --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that he ought to be putting this in a little bit more perspective.

Mr Elston: I again have to say that the Premier is not coming forward with a full recollection of all of the things he used to say in opposition.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Elston: I would like to return to the General Motors issue, because in essence the first admission of this Premier that he knows nothing of an event which could parlay into upwards of 4,000 women and men in this province losing their jobs is an admission of an inability to keep in touch with the serious economic implications of the restructuring that is going on in this economy.

I cannot tell members how disappointed we are as individuals that this Premier, having met just a day or so ago, is unable to tell us what he has in his hands that would save the jobs that are at risk in Oshawa. Can the Premier tell us what economic recovery plan coming down the line from his throne speech or his statement in September he has prepared to respond to the difficulties that GM workers are facing over this Christmas season?

Hon Mr Rae: Let's look at this situation. General Motors has announced a major restructuring of the company. It has announced it is going to be reducing substantially levels of employment in both the salaried sector and among blue-collar workers. It is announcing there are a number of assembly plants and a number of power train and component plants across North America which are going to be closed over the next few years.

Mr Elston: Through the mid-1990s.

Hon Mr Rae: Through the mid-1990s.

What we also know is that the assessment the corporation makes with respect to each part of its company has to do with the competitiveness, the capacity and the ability of the plant to produce goods, products and services at a competitive level. That is precisely what Mr Stempel told me over a year ago when I met with him before of any of this was being announced with respect to the assessments.

What I was told by Mr Stempel was this: When you consider the general productivity of Canadian workers, when you consider the health care advantages we have in terms of the differential on benefit plans and the very substantial differences that are there and when you consider the overall makeup of the industry, the Ontario and Canadian plants are competitive. But it is very tough out there and improvements are being made in American plants and other plants all the time.

So I would say to the member that it is now a challenge for all of us, for the workers, for management and for everyone, to ensure that we are going to be as competitive as possible in keeping as much employment as possible in the plants that are here in Ontario.

Mr Elston: Having already admitted to this House that he knows nothing of the General Motors situation with respect to the restructuring and the effect it has on the women and men of this province, can the Premier tell us what he got in return for having given a more flexible funding program to GM that is going to cost the contributions to that pension plan between $500 million and $700 million? Can he tell us what he got for that?

Hon Mr Rae: I am glad the honourable member is the one who is asking the question because he was the minister who brought in the regulations that had the effect of increasing the liability of General Motors in a way that he never understood or anticipated or realized, because if he anticipated, understood or realized it, he would have understood that the regulatory change for which he is responsible had a very negative impact with respect to the company's proceedings and dealings in this province. It is not a question of what you get for what you are doing; it is a question of saying that this province is prepared to act in good faith. This province is not, by a mistake of a previous government, going to unwittingly and unknowingly cause a corporation an increase in liability far in excess of what it is able to produce.

Mr Elston: I well recollect the interjections of those people during those debates when they said it was not enough. I want the Premier to tell us what effect has his movement on the pension funding requirements had on the pension benefits guarantee fund and the outstanding liabilities that are now resting at the feet of the consolidated revenue fund, now owned by the Treasury? Can he identify the fact that he has just given a guarantee by the province of Ontario against the $500 million to $700 million in contributions that are no longer required?

Hon Mr Rae: If the honourable member is opposed to the approach we are taking, I hope he stands up and says so and indicates what his alternative is, because there is an opportunity. There is now a two-month consultation period, a very specific period in which people can comment on what is being done. I say to the honourable member that what is taking place here is a serious consultation with the workers in the industry with respect to a situation that was created by previous legislation. That is a very substantial problem. The minister is nodding; he knows it perfectly well, because he knows perfectly well that these changes are there.

I say to the member that if he wants to take a look at the proposed draft regulations that are there, they deal specifically with the question of the guarantee fund and the need for that guarantee fund to be better protected in light of other changes that are being made.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Eves: I would like to ask the Premier a question with respect to his standards of proper conduct by cabinet ministers. He said on December 12, 1990: "I think we are entitled to certain standards from our colleagues. I do not like surprises" -- referring to the actions of the member for Oakwood when he was asked by the Premier to step aside and out of his caucus. "We must at all times act in the manner that will bear not only the closest public scrutiny but go further and ensure public confidence and trust in the integrity of government."

On July 2, 1986, with respect to the René Fontaine affair and certain allegations -- and at that time they were just that, allegations against Mr Fontaine -- here is the now Premier's own question, "Does the Premier not understand the problems he has created by not stating quite simply that it would be in everybody's interests if the member were to step aside from cabinet until such time as this matter has been resolved?" That is my question: his question.

1450

Hon Mr Rae: Earlier on this week, the leader of the third party asked me five questions. Then he asked a sixth question, which was:

"We are calling on the Premier today, and I ask him to consider it carefully, to call for a full, open, unfettered investigation by an all-party committee of this Legislature into the entire Martel affair and the related involvements of the Minister of Health and Ministry of Health and the documents. Will the Premier agree with this today so that we can get on with business?"

That is exactly what we have agreed to on this side. That is exactly what we have said. I say to the honourable member for Parry Sound that he knows that. That is exactly what we have agreed to. The member's leader asked me a question and we have answered it in good faith.

Mr Eves: The Premier seems to have had a memory lapse here. He selectively has not remembered that despite the fact that both the Fontaine and Caplan matters were investigated by a committee of this Legislature, the Premier, in his role then as leader of the official opposition, demanded that they both step down while the investigation was going on. There is his quote. That is what we are asking him to do. Why will he not do it? It is the same thing he asked of them.

Hon Mr Rae: With great respect to the honourable member, in the situation we are dealing with today we were asked by opposition parties, specifically by the leader of the third party, "Will you set up a committee? Will you have a committee?" which we did.

Mr Scott: You're afraid to do it.

Hon Mr Rae: The member for St George-St David says we are afraid to do it, which is quite the opposite of the facts, quite the opposite of the truth. We have set up the committee. We have given the committee the clear mandate to do it. We have offered the chairmanship of the committee to a member of the opposition, if the two parties can agree on which party should chair it. We have made all that very clear. The members opposite wanted counsel. We have offered them counsel. What they are saying is, "Unless you do things the way the opposition wants you to do it, we are not prepared to let you govern." That is what the members opposite are saying.

Mr Eves: The issue still remains. All those were factors in both those other precedents in this House. The fair thing to do, the proper thing to do is what those two members did; they stepped aside while the investigation was going on. I do not have to remind the Premier of that. We have all kinds of quotes. We can keep on bringing these up.

Another question, the same question the honourable Premier asked on June 13, 1989: "It is the Premier's job to determine what are the ethical standards of members of his cabinet." I want to ask the Premier, does he understand the distinction between a conflict-of-interest law and a standard of ethical conduct that he should be requiring of his own ministers?

Hon Mr Rae: Yes, I do.

MEETING ON THE ECONOMY

Mr Harris: My question is to the Premier. The Premier has been calling for tomorrow's first ministers' meeting for over a year. Over this past year he has been out of step, and quite frankly has been condemned on many occasions by other premiers for his massive spending, for his huge deficit, while others of all political parties, even two newly elected New Democratic governments, have consistently said: "We must have balanced budgets and cut government spending. We must get our own spending in line if we are to have a truly sustainable recovery in this country."

Can the Premier tell me how, after a year of being totally out of step with all the other premiers and ministers of finance, he expects to go to Ottawa tomorrow with absolutely nothing new to offer and with some vague support for a proposal of the federal government and expects he will take a leadership role? How is he possibly going to take a leadership role tomorrow at that meeting of the first ministers on the economy?

Hon Mr Rae: It seems to me that helping to create a climate in which it is possible for it to take place has been a contribution this province has made. I have spent some considerable time talking with everyone, including the Prime Minister, about the importance of this issue for the people of Canada and how it could not be postponed and put off any longer. Without wanting to claim any credit, I think the mood in the country among the premiers has changed over the last month, because of the way in which it has become very clear to everyone that this issue is one that requires direct attention.

I think the proposals we are making with respect to infrastructure, job creation and the RRSP idea -- which we share with others; we are not making any claims that it is unique to any one place -- are part of a constructive mood that we hope is emerging among all the premiers.

I am very proud of our record in this government on job creation in response to the most serious recession that has been faced. If the member looks at the deficit numbers coming in now from Saskatchewan and British Columbia, and looks at the statements made by the Tory premiers in those provinces prior to the elections, we are beginning to see the credibility of this government with respect to job creation and with respect to dealing honestly with the people on what we can do and what it is going to cost and the fact we are able to meet the challenges we set out for ourselves in the last budget.

Mr Harris: The premiers in all the other provinces have taken pains to try to get their affairs in order. This Premier increased spending by 14% and gave our civil service 16.1% in new money last year, totally out of sync with all the other premiers.

For a year, the Premier has been calling for this meeting. Now he has this meeting and today we find out he has a few vague suggestions and absolutely nothing new to take to the table. Some two months ago, I offered him some very specific proposals, 34 pages chock-full of actual proposals, things that could be done. In fact, I have 11 copies of New Directions here. I will ask a page to take these 11 copies over to the Premier. In the absence of having anything specific at all, will the Premier take these 11 copies of New Directions, full of specific proposals, so that he will not be embarrassed and so Ontario can have something positive to contribute to the discussions at lunch tomorrow?

Hon Mr Rae: I will be delighted to share this information with the other premiers, as well as with the Prime Minister. I thought the Prime Minister would already have a copy, but I will make sure he gets one.

With regard to the record of other provinces, I want to remind the member that his good friend and Conservative colleague Grant Devine said he was going to have a $250-million operating deficit -- operating, not capital -- and it is now close to $1 billion. That is the record of the Conservative government in Saskatchewan. With respect to British Columbia, the leader of the third party's best friend, Rita Johnston, told us there was going to be a $400-million deficit; it is now $1.9 billion on operating alone.

We will compare our record of what we have had to do and the challenges we faced with that of any other government in Canada. We are proud of what we have done, we are proud of our Treasurer and we are proud of wrestling with the most difficult recession we have had to face since the 1930s.

1500

Mr Harris: I remind the Premier that my good friend Roy Romanow got elected calling for a balanced budget, and in that aspect he is my good friend. I am not interested in personalities. I am not interested in political parties. I am interested in policies. I am interested in what people stand for. That is what indeed I have been fighting for throughout my political career, and it is what I am fighting for today.

I appreciate that the Premier will take New Directions to 24 Sussex. I will have some comfort knowing that at least there will be something positive -- in fact, 34 pages of positive suggestions -- perhaps on the table, or at least shared there. I want to ask the Premier specifically about one of the proposals, something that might give some hope and opportunity to retailers, to families and to those who have been laid off.

In this document there is a suggestion for an immediate cut in sales tax in Ontario, from 8% to 7%, with the corresponding cuts in the government's own wasteful spending to go with it. Will the Premier put on the table tomorrow his offer -- in order to give a little Christmas present, some hope and some opportunity, to the people of this province -- to cut taxes in Ontario, and specifically the sales tax immediately by 1%?

Hon Mr Rae: Whatever proposals are here, I am sure, will be part of a broad discussion that will take place in the few hours we have tomorrow.

The honourable member wants to cut taxes. I presume what he is saying is he wants to cut the GST as well. That would be part of the proposal. The member wants to cut taxes and he wants to increase some areas of spending -- there are lots of new spending proposals in here -- and at the same time he wants to balance the budget. He cannot have it all ways all the time. It is not going to work when he tries to do it that way.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Scott: My question is to the Premier. The Premier will be with the other premiers tomorrow and it may be that politics will be discussed during the course of it. I am certain some of his colleagues will ask him about the Shelley Martel affair. He will be able to answer: "When I was Leader of the Opposition, I was very tough. When allegations, later unfounded, were made against Elinor Caplan and a committee was going to be set up, I demanded her resignation before the committee went ahead so that she would be out while the committee was under way. When Joan Smith was at stake, I, as the Leader of the Opposition, got up and tore a strip off her, right up one side and down the other, and demanded and got her resignation. I was a tough Leader of the Opposition."

The Premier will now be able to say: "Now that I've got the levers of power in my own hands, I can say to the people of Ontario: 'Stuff it. I'm running this show.'" That is what the Premier can say to his fellow premiers, but what is he going to say to the people of Ontario about this absolutely abysmal flip-flop that indicates the standards he once had were totally transparent and worthless?

Hon Mr Rae: What I will say to the people of Ontario is what I have been saying to them for some time, and that is that we are working hard at some of the toughest issues any government has faced since the Great Depression. I can assure the honourable member that is the preoccupation of the people of this province, and that is what they expect to be the preoccupation of their government.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Scott: There are real questions being raised in this province about the fitness of this Premier to deal with these issues in a democratic assembly as a result of what has happened over the last week or so.

Here is what the member for York South said in 1986 about a mistake made by a member of the previous government: "Fairminded people" -- he includes himself always in that category -- "think it is important that cabinet ministers set standards as members of cabinet. We, alas, live in a world where mistakes have consequences. Does Premier Peterson not understand that he has to live with those consequences and accordingly deal with them firmly?" The resignation of a minister followed.

I want to ask the Premier, what are the consequences of this mistake and when is he going to attempt to restore the confidence of the public in his shattered integrity?

Hon Mr Rae: My experience teaches me that people out there, generally speaking, do not always assume the worst of other people.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: I say to the honourable member, as he speaks and shouts at me from his chair and shouts at me when he stands, when he makes the accusations he makes --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for York Mills, come to order.

Hon Mr Rae: -- when he says that anybody around here goes around telling the people of Ontario they can stuff it, to use the words he uses, all the words he uses when he stands on his feet today, I simply say to him that the member for Sudbury has clearly indicated she is sorry for what has taken place, she has apologized for what has taken place, and this government has clearly offered to both opposition parties a willingness to have an all-party committee deal with this question.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Harris: My question is to the Premier as well. I read his comments this morning in the Globe and Mail regarding General Motors' pension requirements. He said, "This is one very specific thing which this province is looking at because of the need for us to provide a competitive climate for General Motors."

I find it absurd that he can talk about providing a competitive climate for the auto industry or any other industry in Ontario, particularly with regard to the auto industry, at the same time as the members of my caucus have been talking for hours against his gas guzzler/auto workers tax. This is a tax that directly hurts the auto industry's ability to compete. If the Premier is truly serious about helping auto workers, will he withdraw the gas guzzler tax today?

Hon Mr Rae: The tax that was proposed by the Treasurer was then revised after a serious consultation with the industry, during which members of the industry indicated very clearly to us that this was one of the few times they could ever remember a government sitting down and listening and learning from the experiences they were describing and therefore reforming the tax; which treats all cars, wherever they are made, in a reasonable way. It is designed specifically to deal with the problem of excessive fuel consumption and those standards. It is our intention to proceed with it in a fair and responsible way.

Mr Harris: The Premier knows the original tax had that intent. This is simply a tax on cars and no longer has anything to do with the environment. He knows that. That was the concession made. In effect, the offer to the auto industry was, "Do you want us to heavily tax all the cars you make or just moderately increase the tax on the whole lot of them?" The reality is that this is a tax on automobiles. The reality is that the government is driving business out of this province. It is driving GM out of this province. Its policies are forcing day care workers out of business. Its labour proposals may cost Ontario 500,000 jobs. Its Sunday shopping legislation is costing thousands of retail jobs. Its retroactive housing legislation has cost all kinds of jobs.

As GM and all the auto manufacturing plants in this province are having difficulty, why will the Premier not do one thing -- withdraw and cancel this silly new tax on automobiles -- to help give our auto workers a chance in this province?

Hon Mr Rae: Quite bluntly, I do not think it would have that effect. I do not think it would have the effect the member thinks it would have. I do not think it is having the effect he describes, the suggestion he made.

I want to respond to the preamble to the question. To suggest that the GM announcement made by Mr Stempel with respect to all of North America is the fault of this government is just a preposterous thought. It reflects no understanding of what is taking place.

If that is what the leader of the third party believes, has he no understanding of what is taking place around North America? Does he not realize there is a recession on all around North America? Instead of coming up with his ideas from the 1920s, from Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover, my friend should get with it. We are in the most serious structural recession since the 1920s.

1510

PIPER AIRCRAFT

Mrs Mathyssen: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. It has been about two weeks since Cyrus Eaton spoke to his officials about the acquisition of Piper Aircraft. I recognize that his ministry has placed a high priority on increasing value added jobs in Ontario in such sectors as aerospace. Municipalities near my riding would like to see Piper come to Ontario. Would the minister give us an update on his negotiations with Piper?

Hon Mr Philip: As the member has indicated, our ministry is actively pursuing viable investment opportunities in this province. However, since public funds are often involved, our investment decisions must be considered carefully and reached only after a thorough investigation of the pertinent facts, and Piper Aircraft is a case in point.

Since the first meeting with Mr Eaton some two weeks ago, high-level contacts between my officials and Mr Eaton have continued. Last week I told this Legislature that I had spoken to Mr Eaton about our interest in Piper, as has the Premier, and another senior-level meeting took place last Friday, with a specific mandate of clarifying some questions we had as a result of a very lengthy business proposal that was given to us. I might add that the proposal included a sizeable commitment of money. We are looking into the proposal.

Mrs Mathyssen: I am pleased to see that despite the fact that Investment Canada chose to exclude Ontario from any discussions with Piper, the minister and his officials are actively pursuing the possibility of attracting this company. On the other hand, the company is under the gun of US bankruptcy proceedings and January 31 has been mentioned by Mr Eaton as a deadline. Can the minister tell the House what his ministry is doing to meet this January 31 deadline?

Hon Mr Philip: Since earlier this week, my officials have been conducting due diligence process. We are looking at such items as the direct benefits, such as jobs, the ripple effects in terms of new markets for suppliers, the sources of funding, the track record of the company involved in terms of funding and its operations expertise, as well as markets that may be available for the craft it manufactures.

We are proud of the progress we are showing. We believe our progress to be superior to that of other jurisdictions in Canada and we believe our evaluation process helps to ensure that we do not enter into deals where we will be liable down the road to the taxpayers for additional funds we are not aware of.

All I can say to the honourable member is that we are acting as quickly as possible without cutting any corners. We invite other proposals from other companies that want to locate in this province and we will work with them in the same manner. Ontario is open for business.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mrs McLeod: My question is for the Premier. I have been following the events of this House over the last two weeks with considerable regret. I have tried to find in the repeated responses of the Premier and the Minister of Northern Development and Mines some evidence that they understand the magnitude of this issue, some sense of the standard the Premier is applying in refusing to asking this minister to resign. I ask the Premier if he will please help me to understand whether there is any standard he is using as a basis for his judgement in this case, and if there is, what I should understand that standard to be.

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that the issue here, I think, as we have tried to discuss it as candidly as possible over the last number of days in the House, is that in the course of a conversation with Mrs Dodds, the minister lost her temper and said things which she should not have said. I am satisfied, on the basis of everything I know about the minister and on the basis of her conduct as a minister -- on what she has done in terms of her capacities, her administrative abilities, her abilities, her hard work, what she has done across northern Ontario -- that she regrets very much what has taken place. It was an error of judgement on her part. That aspect of it is obviously important to me and I think it is important to most people in the House.

Mrs McLeod: As I have been travelling this province over the past year, I have become more and more concerned about the lack of faith people have in the political process and in politicians. I refer to the Premier's own guidelines for the conduct of his ministers wherein one of his fundamental principles is, "Ministers shall perform the duties of office and arrange their affairs in such a manner as to maintain public confidence and trust in the integrity of the government."

Surely the Premier does not believe that repeated apologies for repeated mistakes, and particularly in this case an apology for a fraudulent and slanderous statement made, is enough to wipe the slate clean. The minister has lost the trust of the people of northern Ontario, even the people of Sudbury. I ask the Premier why he will not take this step of asking the minister to step down in order to salvage some sense of integrity for his government.

Hon Mr Rae: We all go around the province and we all talk to people and we all listen to what people have to say about politicians. I think the conduct, the rhetoric, the language and the preoccupations of all members of the Legislative Assembly and of all members of the House of Commons are what is being considered by Canadians and what is being looked at by Ontarians in this regard.

We have been candid in terms of all the events that are there. When there was any suggestion that there was confidential information somewhere, we asked the Information and Privacy Commissioner to be there. The minister apologized several times. She has apologized to this House on several occasions. She has made that very clear.

We have offered to set up a committee. We were asked to set up a committee so that we could get on with business. That is what the leader of the third party asked for and we responded to that. We have made that case very clear. I think what is at stake here is not only, as the honourable member says, the integrity of this government or of me, or the fact of the things that are being said; I suggest that part of what it is now clear is happening is that the people of the province are looking to the conduct of all their politicians and the standards and judgement they exercise all the time. That is how I am going to be judged and that is how everyone in the House today is going to be judged.

Mr Stockwell: The Premier continues to get up and he does not answer the question. My question is to the Premier again, giving him another opportunity, another attempt to answer the questions that are put.

The question is clear, and the Premier can give all the rhetoric he wants but the question still stands. Fontaine and Caplan had to step aside while an investigation was taking place; the now Premier insisted upon this. The Premier is in the same situation. The only difference is -- now listen carefully -- those were allegations. What we have here is a minister admitting she lied and slandered, which is a very substantial difference.

Why is it that the Premier insisted those ministers stand aside and he does not insist upon it for his own minister? I ask the Premier not to mix the question up. I do not want to hear about apologies. I do not want to hear about mistakes. I want to hear the Premier rationalize why he insisted Fontaine and Caplan stand aside while this member does not have to.

Hon Mr Rae: The member for Etobicoke West not only wants to write the questions; he also wants to write the answers. Unfortunately, he may not want to hear some of the things people say on the other side.

Mr Scott: Don't be funny about it. Have you no standards? God, this is unbelievable.

Hon Mr Rae: I believe the record of this government in this area is very clear.

Mr Scott: You're a pigmy compared to previous occupants of your office. You are, absolutely.

Hon Mr Rae: The member for St George-St David has called me a liar --

Mr Scott: Bill Davis had more guts than you. David Peterson had more guts than you.

1520

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

Mr Scott: I didn't say you were a liar.

Hon Mr Rae: You said it on a number of occasions.

Mr Scott: I said you were gutless.

The Speaker: Order, the member for St George-St David.

Interjections.

Mr Harnick: You're better than he was, Bob. You're just a better person. You're just a much better person. You're slimy. You are just a condescending, slippery --

The Speaker: First, I ask the House to come to order. I will deal first with the member for St George-St David and then the member for Willowdale. I ask the member for St George-St David, who earlier in his comments made an unparliamentary remark, if he would be kind enough to withdraw that remark.

Mr Scott: What words, Mr Speaker?

The Speaker: I think if the member reflects back, at the time when I first rose, there was the reference to former premiers and how you compared this Premier in stature.

Mr Scott: I withdraw that remark if it was unparliamentary. I believe the Premier has not got the moral fibre of those occupants of this office.

The Speaker: Certainly most acceptable.

The member for Willowdale, I would ask him not to use language that is insulting to other members of the House and I would ask him to withdraw the comments he just now hurled across the floor.

Mr Harnick: If I made such remarks, I withdraw them.

The Speaker: Response by the Premier?

Hon Mr Rae: I can only answer in the way that I have answered as clearly as I can to the member for Etobicoke West. He and I may have a difference of opinion. That does not mean we have to rise to the level of adjectival assassination that we seem to have arrived at in the House today.

Mr Stockwell: The question was very clear. I asked the Premier the difference and he is giving me some lecture that we should not get this upset. Does he know why everyone is upset? It is because he sat on this side of the House so sanctimoniously, so holier than thou. He knew all the answers when these issues came up. The question still stands. He sat on this side with a clear agenda. The agenda was that when any conflict such as this came up, they must step down.

I am asking the Premier, what is the difference, besides changing sides of the House, between these issues of Fontaine and Caplan and what he is faced with today? I am asking that question. I am not putting the answer in his mouth. I just do not want to hear about mistakes and apologies. I want to know what the difference is and why this minister can stay and those ministers had to leave because he asked them to. Where is the difference?

Hon Mr Rae: Maybe the difference is contained partly in the question in terms of whether this amounts to a conflict, whether the minister is benefiting at all from anything that has been done, whether there is any economic interest involved here. These are questions of judgement with respect to what has taken place.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Mr B. Ward: This is a very serious question for the people of Brantford.

The Speaker: To whom is your question directed?

Mr B. Ward: My question is for the Solicitor General. These are tough times in Ontario and in Brantford. We are all aware of that. The people of Brantford are appreciative of the support this government has shown them. However, they are extremely tough times for the victims of sexual assault in the city of Brantford and Brant county, and that is because we do not have a sexual assault centre. They have had a grass-roots committee form over the years and two individuals are working very hard: Vayla Roberts, the chairman of the Brant county sexual assault committee, and Kim Van Louwe of the social planning council. However, we still do not have a sexual assault centre in Brantford or Brant county.

My question is, could the Solicitor General give this House an update on any progress that is being made towards establishing a sexual assault centre for the people of Brantford and Brant county?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I thank the member for his question and for his concern with respect to the needs of victims of sexual assault. I know he has been concerned because, to put it mildly, he has been in constant contact with my ministry staff on this particular issue. About three weeks ago the Brant county sexual assault advisory committee was formed. The committee has conducted a needs assessment of the community and developed a proposal for a service.

The hopes of the committee and the people of Brant county were lifted on May 8, 1991, when our government advised a tripling -- yes, a tripling -- of the funding for sexual assault centres. Subsequently, in the course of ongoing communications with my staff, the sexual assault committee developed a startup plan based on the needs of Brantford. On December 12, staff from the ministry met with the committee to discuss the proposal, a budget and a work plan. I am pleased to tell the member for Brantford that the ministry does not anticipate any difficulty with funding for the Brant county proposal.

Mr B. Ward: It has been a priority of mine since my election and I think it is also a priority of the people of Brantford to obtain the funds. I am quite anxious to find out when the funds will flow to the area. Could the minister provide an estimated date when funds will be provided to the Brant sexual assault advisory committee so that it can work towards establishing the centre? I know there is a small obstacle, and I am aware of that, concerning the flowing of funds to an unincorporated agency. I hope we can overcome that small problem as well.

Hon Mr Pilkey: The member indicates a difficulty with the incorporation with respect to that particular group, but I can indicate to the member that the funds will flow very soon indeed. While I cannot give him an absolute date, the meaning of that comment is that it will be in the foreseeable future, in the very near term indeed. It will not be a prolonged circumstance. He will be very happy with the result.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mrs Caplan: In the absence of the Premier, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. On June 16, 1986, amid a series of allegations later proved to be unfounded with respect to my compliance with conflict-of-interest guidelines, he asked me: "Why does the minister not do the honourable thing and step down until the matter has been clarified?" I would like to ask the minister why this same standard is not being applied to his colleague today.

Hon Mr Philip: I am happy to accept any questions directed towards my ministry. That has nothing to do with my ministry. I will refer it to the government House leader.

Hon Mr Cooke: This is the protocol of this place and I think the member for Oriole knows that. We have said in this Legislature time and time again that we are prepared to have this issue looked into.

We had a request from the leader of the third party at the beginning of the week that the matter go to committee. I negotiated on behalf of the government for the last two days with her House leader and the House leader of the third party. We were almost at the point where we had an agreement on how the committee would proceed. The government agreed with every demand the opposition parties made with the exception of one, and it should be very clear to the opposition parties that the government will not be offering the resignation of a minister, but we want the matter to go to committee. One can only understand that the point the opposition parties have made in the last two days is that they do not want this matter to go to committee because they know they have nothing to prove and we have nothing to hide.

Mr Bradley: I would like to call you a liar right now.

Hon Mr Wildman: Mr Speaker, is that in order?

Mrs Caplan: I would like to pursue this matter further. The NDP observed in this House on June --

The Speaker: Would the member for Oriole take her seat, please. The member for St Catharines, that is doing something indirectly which you know you are not permitted to do directly.

Mr Bradley: I said I would like to call him a liar right now. I obviously did not call him a liar.

1530

The Speaker: I would ask the member simply to withdraw that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for St Catharines makes it very awkward because I --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Will the House come to order.

When we have a difficult issue before the House, language becomes perhaps more focused than what is helpful. I ask the member for St Catharines, in the circumstance of the atmosphere which is currently in the chamber, if he would reconsider his approach to the topic.

Mr Bradley: To assist the Speaker, because I know you want to keep this House decorous or whatever you call it, I will certainly withdraw that.

The Speaker: I appreciate the approach of the member for St Catharines's. If the member for Oriole would place her supplementary.

Mrs Caplan: In supplementary, I will pursue the matter further. I remind the members of the NDP cabinet that on June 16, 1986, the quote was that "only after" the legislative standing committee had dealt with the issues could I stand in all respect and take over my responsibilities once again.

My question today is, what has changed in the NDP standards of conduct between 1986 and 1991, and why is the Premier not demanding that same standard of conduct from his own colleague today?

Hon Mr Cooke: The request at the beginning of the week was for a committee of the Legislature to look at the matter. The proposal was put forward and we negotiated in good faith. I can only come to the conclusion that the opposition parties are afraid to have this go to committee.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr J. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Health. She knows that the Provincial Auditor, the Ontario Hospital Association, health organizations, I and my colleagues in the Ontario PC party, have been telling her all along that hospitals are being forced to randomly cut beds without government direction and without any overall assessment of the health care needs of Ontarians as a whole.

Medical specialists are now giving her the same message, and they are tragically doing so, because they are voting with their feet and leaving Ontario in large numbers. Ontario has lost about 25 orthopaedic surgeons to the United States in the past few months.

I ask the minister what she says to patients who will now be forced to wait in even longer lineups for medical specialists' care.

Hon Ms Lankin: We have dealt with this issue a number of times with respect to the effect of the negotiations between the government and the Ontario Medical Association, the effect of the thresholds, and the member raises some other issues.

First of all, with respect to orthopaedic surgeons, there have been in every year in the last number of years a fair number of orthopaedic surgeons who have left Ontario and gone to the United States. The member suggests the problem is larger. The numbers I have seen thus far do not suggest the number is larger, but I will look into his recent stats that he is quoting.

I can also tell him that in terms of the increase in the number of orthopaedic Lsurgeons we have in the province year over year, we have a substantially larger core of orthopaedic surgeons in Ontario this year than last year in terms of those who are graduating and coming into the province.

Overall, however, the member raises the issue of management of human resources with respect to physician services. I think it is an important issue. I might come at it from a different perspective than him, but I agree with the importance of the issue.

We are meeting with other provincial ministers of health. This is an issue not just in Ontario. Every province faces this in terms of distribution of specialty, mix of doctors and numbers of doctors. The Barer-Stoddart report focused on a lot of this, and we hope we will be taking action in the new year that will help not just Ontario but all of Canada to manage this important issue.

Mr J. Wilson: At the very time the Minister of Northern Development and Mines was slandering and lying to a crowd in Thunder Bay, that very night I was meeting with doctors in Sudbury on behalf of my caucus colleagues, and in fact with the very doctor she slandered and lied about. Ministry of Health officials were telling the good people of the north that if there is a shortage of specialists, under the grant program they can send their patients down south.

I have news for the minister. There are not enough specialists here any more to deal with the problems of northern Ontarians, let alone the people of southern Ontario. I have a list of 10 medical specialists who have left the Toronto area in the past few months. Dr John Kostuik, spinal specialist, orthopaedic surgeon, left Toronto Hospital and is now at Johns Hopkins. Dr Steve Esses has left Toronto Hospital and is now in Houston. Dr Peter Armstrong, children's orthopaedic surgeon, has left the Hospital for Sick Children and is now in Salt Lake City, Utah.

The Speaker: Would the member place his supplementary question.

Mr J. Wilson: Dr Debbie Bell, children's orthopaedic surgeon, spinal specialist, has left Sick Children's and is now in Detroit. Dr Peter Brooks, reconstructive surgeon, left Toronto.

The Speaker: Does the member have a supplementary question.

Mr J. Wilson: He is now in Cleveland. I could go on. Dr Bob Jackson, Dr Stan Gurtzbain, Dr Gross, Dr Susan MacKinnon --

The Speaker: Rather than list all the doctors in the province, would the member succinctly place his supplementary if he has one.

Mr J. Wilson: I am succinctly placing it, but it is a very long list and I am doing the best I can.

Dr Susan MacKinnon, a world leading plastic surgeon, just left Toronto and has now gone somewhere in the United States, and there are others. These are not just medical specialists. These are world renowned, top-of-their-field medical specialists in Canada.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. The member was asked several times to place a question and he failed so to do. The time for oral questions has expired. I realize that both the member for Simcoe West and the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hasting indeed have questions and perhaps they will find their way to question period tomorrow.

PETITIONS

HEALTH PROFESSIONS

Mrs Caplan: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"We respectfully request that chiropodists continue to be permitted to communicate a diagnosis identifying a disease or disorder of the foot, thus eliminating the inevitable two-tier health disciplines and allowing this profession to serve the people of Ontario in its fullest capacity."

This is signed by 100% of the students of the Ontario chiropody program at the Michener Institute.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr McLean from the standing committee on government agencies presented its 22nd report.

Mr McLean: Briefly, the standing committee on government agencies met to consider the review of intended appointments, pursuant to standing order 104(g). Your committee reviewed the intended appointments of Verna L. Hannaford, member of Orillia Police Services Board, and Frances Adams, member, Village of Lakefield Police Services Board, referred to the committee on Tuesday, November 28, 1991. Your committee concurs in the intended appointments of these persons.

The Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 104(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

1540

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 bills without amendment:

Bill Pr104, An Act to revive The Church of the Torontonians;

Bill Pr109, An Act to revive Federated Women's Institutes of Ontario, Bay of Quinte Branch;

Bill Pr113, An Act to revive Hotstone Minerals Limited;

Bill Pr114, An Act to revive Tasmaque Gold Mines Limited;

Bill Pr115, An Act to revive Pittsonto Mining Company Limited;

Bill Pr116, An Act to revive Sunbeam Exploration Company Limited;

Bill Pr117, An Act to revive Petitclerc Mines Limited;

Bill Pr118, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton;

Bill Pr119, An Act to establish the West Nipissing Economic Development Corporation.

Your committee further recommends that the fees and the actual costs of printing at all stages and in the annual statutes be remitted on Bill Pr109, An Act to revive Federated Women's Institutes of Ontario, Bay of Quinte Branch.

Motion agreed to.

MEMBER'S MAILING

Mrs Sullivan: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: The member for Ottawa-Rideau earlier rose on a point of privilege in relationship to a letter written by the member for Ottawa Centre to people in her constituency.

I am asking that you investigate this letter since it was produced on Legislative Assembly paper using the office of her constituency and her Queen's Park office. It contains information which is false in relation to some programs that have been introduced, and I am asking that you investigate this. This information contains lies. It is your duty, as the Speaker, to review the use of communications work for the members of the House, and I believe that you should undertake that investigation.

The Speaker: While I am pleased to take a look at anything which is brought to my attention, the member should know that she has not demonstrated any loss of her privileges as a member. At the same time --

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: I draw the member's attention to another matter, that it is not appropriate to accuse a member in the House of lying. We have gone over this ground on other occasions. It was necessary to make a statement to the House to that effect. Members should know that it is not appropriate, and I would ask the member to withdraw an accusation in the House of a member lying.

Mrs Sullivan: I will withdraw those words and substitute for them the words of another member. Those statements are unfounded and not true.

The Speaker: That is all that is required. At the same time the member should know that while I am pleased to take a look at any material, things which occur outside of the chamber, outside of the precinct, are not within the purview of the Speaker. None the less, I will take a look at the information you have presented.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT PROTECTION ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'ESCARPEMENT DU NIAGARA

Mr B. Murdoch moved first reading of Bill 167, An Act to revise the Law Relating to the Protection of the Niagara Escarpment and the Surrounding Wetlands / Projet de loi 167, Loi révisant la Loi concernant la protection de l'escarpement du Niagara et des terres marécageuses environnantes.

Motion agreed to.

Mr B. Murdoch: The bill repeals the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act. The bill provides for the designation of a natural area which would be limited to the Niagara Escarpment and its surrounding wetlands. Development in the natural area is prohibited unless approved by the municipality and the assembly. Changes to the boundary of the natural area shall be restricted to those changes that are necessary in order to respect changes in the natural boundaries of the escarpment and surrounding wetlands. The changes to the boundaries must be approved by the municipalities affected and the assembly.

PAY EQUITY AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ÉQUITÉ SALARIALE

Mr Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 168, An Act to amend the Pay Equity Act / Projet de loi 168, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'équité salariale.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The bill establishes two additional methods of determining whether pay equity exists for a female job class, the proportional value method and the proxy method. The bill states the circumstances in which the crown is considered to be the employer of an individual for purposes of the act. The bill provides that when an employer sells the business, the purchaser assumes the employer's obligations under the act. There are a number of other housekeeping amendments.

PUBLIC SERVICE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA FONCTION PUBLIQUE

Mr Silipo moved first reading of Bill 169, An Act to amend the Public Service Act and the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act / Projet de loi 169, Loi modifiant la Loi siur la fonction publique et la Loi sur la négociation collective des employés de la Couronne.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Mr Silipo: This bill provides that individuals become public servants, civil servants and crown employees only by express appointment to such and that only employees of designated crown agencies will be eligible to be crown employees. Similar provisions apply amending the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. As I indicated earlier, the introduction of legislation to implement proportional value and proxy pay equity methods will resolve the need for government-as-employer litigation as a means of achieving pay equity.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

1554

LABOUR SPONSORED VENTURE CAPITAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES CORPORATIONS A CAPITAL DE RISQUE DE TRAVAILLEURS

The House divided on Ms Wark-Martyn's motion for second reading of Bill 150, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 82

Abel, Bisson, Boyd, Brown, Buchanan, Caplan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cleary, Conway, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Curling, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Elston, Fawcett, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Grandmaître, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Henderson, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Mancini, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, McClelland, Miclash, Mills, Morrow, Murdock, S., North, O'Connor, Offer, O'Neil, H., O'Neill, Y., Owens, Philip, E., Phillips, G., Pilkey, Poirier, Poole, Pouliot, Rizzo, Scott, Silipo, Ward, B., Ward, M., Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays -- 18

Arnott, Carr, Cousens, Cunningham, Eves, Harnick, Harris, Jackson, Jordan, Marland, McLean, Murdoch, B., Sterling, Stockwell, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson, J., Witmer.

Bill ordered for standing committee on finance and economic affairs.

PARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

Hon Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know it is quite out of order for an interjection to take place during a count, but I want to draw your attention to the intemperate remark of the member for Markham with regard to the member for Sault Ste Marie. I believe he used a term which was unbelievably unparliamentary.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. First, the member for Algoma is right. The Speaker should not interfere in the midst of a vote either. Second, however, I did not hear the remark to which he refers.

I ask that the member for Markham, if indeed --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the House to come to order, please. If the member for Markham indeed did make a remark which was unparliamentary, perhaps he would stand and withdraw that remark.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, in the spirit of the Christmas season, if I was offensive in any way, I withdraw it, although my heart says otherwise.

1600

Hon Mr Wildman: The term was "slime bucket."

The Speaker: In fact, the member has now drawn to the attention of the Speaker and the House the very term to which he took offence, and the member for Markham has in fact withdrawn, which is the appropriate thing to do.

House in committee of the whole.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

Consideration of Bill 158, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act with respect to the Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Sector of the Construction Industry / Projet de loi 158, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les relations de travail en ce qui a trait au secteur industriel, commercial et institutionnel de l'industrie de la construction.

The Second Deputy Chair: Would the honourable parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour have some opening remarks on third reading of Bill 158?

Ms S. Murdock: We are proposing three amendments.

Mr Offer: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: On this particular bill I think your opening comment was whether the parliamentary assistant has anything to say on third reading. Are we in committee of the whole House, or are we on third reading?

The Second Deputy Chair: We are in committee of the whole. The honourable member must speak to a specific section when we go into committee of the whole House.

Ms S. Murdock: Do you want the opening remarks on the specific section, Mr Chairman?

The Second Deputy Chair: Yes, please.

Ms S. Murdock: Which section are we on, Mr Chairman?

The Second Deputy Chair: We are on section 1.

Ms S. Murdock: Then I have no comments to make and I will wait to hear what the opposition has to say.

Mr Sterling: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I am not quite certain whether the parliamentary assistant has amendments to introduce.

Ms S. Murdock: None.

Mr Sterling: She does not have any amendments to introduce. It is quite common that if people have general remarks to make, sometimes they make them around section 1. Anybody wanting to participate in this debate may make remarks on section 1.

The Second Deputy Chair: On section 1, yes, because we will be addressing section 1 specifically.

Mr Offer: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Our understanding was that as we dealt with this bill, which we recognized must be dealt with as expeditiously as possible -- we have said that from day one -- as we went through committee of the whole House and then into third reading, there might be some opening comments made by either the parliamentary assistant or members of the Legislature so that this piece of legislation could start moving along.

The Second Deputy Chair: It is now in committee of the whole House. We have had second reading and it is customary to address generally in second reading. In committee of the whole we will be addressing the specific items within Bill 158. We are now addressing section 1 of Bill 158. Any general comments on section 1 can be entertained now and then we will proceed with the formalities to approve section 1 or otherwise.

Mr Offer: As I indicated earlier, there are a number of people in the construction industry who are looking very closely at this debate. They have recognized the concern we from the official opposition have had, that the government would not introduce this particular piece of legislation until very late in the session.

Notwithstanding the fact that it introduced this piece of legislation late in the session, we met with a number of people who are concerned about the bill, not about its substance -- they were in favour of its substance -- but rather to make certain this bill could be passed as early as possible.

I had spoken with them. I was aware of this piece of legislation. As the Labour critic for the official opposition, I caucused it with members. I believe Hansard will show it was only myself who spoke on second reading. Not only was it only myself, but we spoke fairly briefly on this bill. We did so because we wanted the bill to pass. We still want the bill to pass. We had great concerns with the way the Minister of Labour, who could have brought forward this piece of legislation much earlier on, failed to do so.

The Second Deputy Chair: We are on section 1, please, I want to remind the honourable member.

Mr Offer: I am moving to the point I wish to make.

We were ready to move with this bill. The Minister of Labour knew this issue was crucially important. It was not surprising. It was an issue the construction industry knew existed and had shared that information with the ministry. This was the subject matter of a report. The issues were very clear. The way in which the issues could be addressed were very clear.

We waited and waited for the minister to introduce legislation. The minister did not introduce legislation, I believe the record will show, until November. We sit here but four weeks later. Mr Chair, I thank you for your indulgence in my making this point of order. We sat here waiting for the Minister of Labour to introduce that piece of legislation. We waited and waited and the minister still did not introduce it. Mr Chair, if I may for just one moment, when he did finally introduce the piece of legislation, we spoke very briefly and concisely to the point, in support not only of the legislation but indeed of its passage. Mr Chair, in keeping with the intent and hope of the official opposition for passage of this legislation, I ask, that this matter be now moved into third reading. I ask that the committee rise and report.

1610

The Second Deputy Chair: There is a motion before the committee of the whole that the committee rise and report. Are we reporting progress or are we reporting the bill?

Mr Mancini: Reporting the bill.

The Second Deputy Chair: In committee of the whole it is traditional and customary that we deal with sections one at a time. We have not dealt with the sections.

Mr Sterling: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I believe the motion is out of order in that we are in the middle of the process. If we rise and report at this stage, we are going to be back in the committee of the whole House tomorrow on the same bill.

The Second Deputy Chair: In view of the fact that it has been moved that the committee rise and report the bill, shall sections 1 to 6 be approved?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.

On motion by Ms S. Murdock, the committee of the whole reported one bill without amendment.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

Mr Buchanan, on behalf of Mr Mackenzie, moved third reading of Bill 158, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act with respect to the Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Sector of the Construction Industry / Projet de loi 158, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les relations de travail en ce qui a trait au secteur industriel, commercial et institutionnel de l'industrie de la construction.

Mr Offer: I am pleased to rise and speak on Bill 158. This is a very important bill. It is one that was introduced, I believe, by the Minister of Labour not more than four weeks ago. The construction industry is very concerned about this particular piece of legislation, concerned that it will not only be brought forward to this Legislature and fully debated but hopefully passed in the time permitted.

Let me briefly go through what the bill entails. Basically, what we are talking about is three changes to the Labour Relations Act as it applies to the industrial, commercial and institutional sector of the construction industry.

The first change within the bill deals with extending the contracts from their current length of two years to three years. As was indicated, provincial agreements now run in this sector for a period of two years. This bill proposes an amendment so that those 20-odd provincial contracts would have an existence of not just two years but three years. That is an important change to the status quo. It is important because the sector has found itself almost in a continual bargaining process. When you have a contract that has an existence of two years, it seems that by the time you have negotiated one end of one contract you are starting the negotiations for the next two-year contract. They have found that does not promote a healthy sector.

Second, it is clear there is no question this would provide a stability that does not exist at this point in time to the ICI sector. That is because we are dealing with two-year contracts that always seem to be in some form of bargaining, one way or the other. A three-year contract adds of course another year, but also adds a great deal of certainty and stability to a very important aspect of our province and to an industry within our province.

The second aspect of the bill talks about the creation of a secretariat. This particular area could use a secretariat that would in many ways form a central body to administer the collection and analysis of construction collective bargaining data and the collection and analysis of other relevant industry data to further enhance province-wide, single-trade bargaining. This is important. This is an area that requires ongoing analysis, ongoing examination and ongoing relooking as to what is happening, why, and how it can be enhanced.

To date, there is not that central body to do that work. This piece of legislation would in effect create a secretariat. That secretariat would be charged with the responsibility of collecting data, of learning more about the whole collective bargaining process, some of the issues and aspects within it, and I believe make for a more healthy, more vibrant, more consultative, more co-operative ICI sector.

The third area is, when ratification votes are taken, how they are announced. Currently there is a need, and this legislation will address this need, to ensure that no member of a bargaining unit has knowledge of the outcome of voting already conducted elsewhere in the province by the agency concerning the ratification of a provincial agreement.

Let me go into that in a little bit of detail. The way in which ratification of a provincial agreement may take place is by different regions. One region will vote yes or no dealing with the ratification of a provincial agreement. The votes will be counted and the votes will be announced.

1620

People watching in this Legislature and through the TV may say: "That sounds right. You vote, the vote is counted and the vote is announced." However, the problem we have in this sector is that the voting takes place in different regions and not at the same time. What has developed is that the ratification voting in one region may take place on one day, with votes counted and announced, but the voting on the same agreement in another region may take place on another day at another time.

The problem clearly is that the people going in to vote yes or no on a ratification in one region may very well know and will very well know what the outcome has been of a vote on that contract in another region. The concern is that it may have some bearing on how somebody votes and may in no small way really just not feel right as to how voting should take place.

The question is that if voting is to take place by region on a contract for ratification, that vote can take place very much at different times in different areas, but the announcement of how the vote has been held will not be so announced until all regions have voted.

Clearly, what we are talking about is a principle founded on common sense. One does not announce the outcome of a vote on the same matter in one region before another region has voted. It is something that is understandable. It is something that is absolutely agreeable.

Those are the three areas that are dealt with in the bill. On second reading, as Labour critic I spoke for my caucus in support of the bill. We thought it was an important bill. These are not minor changes, though they may have been alluded to by others as minor changes. These are what I feel are important changes. These are changes that extend the length of the contracts by one year, from two years to three years, thereby building in a stability that is not in existence now.

Second, it creates a secretariat that will be there to analyse a whole variety of data to better aid in the collective bargaining process. That is not there now. I believe through these amendments it will be there and I believe it will be beneficial to the sector.

Third is a certain injection of common sense into the voting by region, which is not there but which will be when this legislation is passed, not minor changes but important changes, not insubstantial changes but substantial changes, not changes that can wait until tomorrow but changes that I and my caucus believe must take place immediately.

I spoke about this in some detail on second reading. At that time, I indicated a great concern that I and my caucus had with the actions of the Minister of Labour and in fact with the government. Why? The answer is that these three areas are not new. These three areas addressed by the Legislature do not come as a surprise. These are areas that have been dealt with through a report. These are areas that have been looked at in great detail, but these are areas that could only be remedied if the Minister of Labour stood up and introduced some legislation.

My concern was that the Minister of Labour waited and waited to introduce, in our opinion, these very important pieces of legislation. I spoke with representatives of groups directly affected by these changes. What did they say to me? They said, "Steve, we want you to do what you can to make certain this bill passes as soon as possible." I think some of those people who met with me are probably watching through their televisions, and they were helpful.

I said: "Tell me a little bit about this bill. Tell me a little bit about what these changes mean to you. Tell me what the changes are. Tell me what the ramifications of those changes would be." They sat down in my office and shared with me, in an informal yet very informative way, their sense as to this. I said: "You have me convinced. I don't see, I don't hear, I haven't received, any opposition, any concern."

We caucused the bill, as is our right, responsibility and indeed our obligation. We discussed this bill, and we as a caucus were very much in support of it and we waited for this bill to be brought forward to the Legislature. This was not an aspect where the government was going to meet with opposition. This was an area where the opposition was prodding the government to move, to deal with the issue, to listen to the people who are affected. We tried, but no, the government sat and sat.

Mr Speaker, as a distinguished member of many years in this Legislature you will know that to be talking about third reading of a piece of legislation just four weeks after its introduction is incredible. It shows a willingness not only on the part of the opposition but also on the part of the third party to deal with this bill as expeditiously as possible.

Who was holding it up? Who was holding up this government legislation? It was the government. We wanted to deal with it. What more can we do but speak in this Legislature in support of this legislation, saying to the parliamentary assistant, whom I see here, to the Minister of Labour and to the members of the government: "Listen to us: We support the bill. We support the changes. We want the bill passed. This sector will be best served in its passage"?

What happened? Nothing. No action. The opposition, the third party, were moving the government to act. My goodness gracious, it was like trying to move a building with a crowbar and pushing and pushing. I am saying there are people out there who need this bill passed by the end of December.

Mr Hope: Then wipe the sweat off your forehead and sit down.

1630

Mr Offer: A member from the government party is interjecting -- not from his seat, mind you. The member for Chatham-Kent, if I recall correctly, says: "Sit down. Stop talking about the bill." I remind the member for Chatham-Kent, who moves with the speed of a glacier, a glacial velocity which is very representative of the government and of the ministers who comprise the government, that with regard to this bill which today was to have gone through committee of the whole, it was us who made the motion that we take it out of committee of the whole, that we deal with the bill on third reading and that we move the bill along.

I also remind the member for Chatham-Kent that as we do that, as we implore the government to chip away at its glacial-type activity, as we ask the government to move forward in areas that require movement and as we implore the government to deal with the issues of the day, it was the opposition and the third party that were pushing the government, that took the crowbar against the building referred to as the Minister of Labour, to push the Minister of Labour along with this piece of legislation.

That is where we stand today. We know, as members of this Legislature, that this particular province has gone through not only a slowdown in the economy and not only a recession but also a very slow, tedious recovery that many people within the construction industry severely and directly felt and have been impacted upon by. And not just them; it has had a spinoff effect on those areas in the economy from which people employed in the construction industry purchase.

We all know what that spinoff is. Every member in this Legislature is aware of what that spinoff is, and all the people watching on television know what that spinoff is; that is, when a person is out of work, not only does that person directly feel the impact of unemployment but so do a whole variety of people who would otherwise supply goods and services to that person, because that person will not buy. That person will not purchase goods. That person will not purchase services. Those people are also affected. Then the people who provide goods to those people and services to those services are also affected; spinoff, implication, ramification, on and on it goes. We all know that.

In this province we have lost 300,000 jobs -- maybe more -- in probably the last year and a half. Can we imagine what that means? I think all members of this Legislature are aware. I think when they have their constituency meetings they are reminded day in and day out, week in and week out, what the impact of the recession means to the people whom they have been elected to serve: people who are out of work, many for the very first time in their lives; people who truly feel a reduction in the options they have. It is not that they are out of work because the company has slowed down and will, when the economy picks up, start to rebuild and rehire. It is people who are out of work because the company has slowed down, shut down, closed down and disappeared. They cannot wait for their company to recall. There is not going to be any recall, because of the fact that the job they have had for 10, 15, 20, 25 years is gone. The company is gone. We have to ask ourselves, where is that person going to go? What type of option does that person have? Those are some of the real issues in the recession. We are not talking just about somebody who is laid off and who is going to be called back; we are talking about people whose place of work no longer exist, and that is very, very sad.

The construction industry has been hard hit by the recession. We all know what has happened to construction in the residential and industrial sectors. We know the vacancies that exist in commercial areas, certainly in the greater Toronto area. We know of the empty office spaces. We know of the lack of housing starts. We know what that means. We know about apartment buildings and units -- vacant. Is this Ontario in the 1990s?

We have gone through a tough time. Certainly we have felt the slowdown, we have felt the recession and we now recognize -- there have been reports issued as early as this morning talking about the fact -- that the recovery is not going to be large. It is not going to be a vigorous economy. It is going to be a slow-moving economy.

The government of the day may do what we on this side see it do each day; that is, wringing their hands and saying: "My goodness, what a problem, what a tragedy, what a difficulty. My goodness gracious, as the province of Ontario it is our duty, it is our obligation, it is our responsibility to find whomever we can blame." So what do we see? We see the government members, at a time when leadership and action are necessary, shuffle and ruffle and wring their hands and blame Brian Mulroney and blame the Conservatives in Ottawa and blame everybody else for all the ills that have befallen Ontario.

I want it to be clear that I do not take Brian Mulroney off the hook, but I also want it to be very clear that we on this side of the house, and I believe probably the backbenchers on the government side, though they are very quiet --

Mr Mammoliti: We're busy.

Mr Offer: Oh, and the member for Downsview says they are very busy. I know what they are probably doing behind their closed doors in their caucus is saying to the Premier or to the ministers: "It isn't enough to wring your hands. It isn't enough to blame the federal government. It isn't enough to look at your problems and say they have been caused by someone else. My area is being very badly hurt. We want action."

They would not say that publicly, but I know that if their constituencies are anything like mine, if their constituencies have felt the ravages of the recession as mine have, then they will have done that. If they have not done it, then I believe they are doing a disservice to their constituents

It can be seen through the questions we ask each and every day. If it is not on the integrity of the government, then it is on what this government is doing in terms of economic action. What is this government doing to send out a message that this is a place to invest in? What is the government doing to send out a message that this is a place that can create wealth, that can create jobs?

We ask questions. Today the Premier was ready to read in response a newspaper report on the fate of GM. Action like never seen before: The Premier of the province ready to stand up and read --

1640

Mr White: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With all due respect, General Motors and the overall situation in our province are not the point. It is Bill 158.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member for Mississauga North.

Mr Offer: I am glad to get the attention of the member for Durham Centre because I think his riding and the people he has been elected to represent will be very well aware of what it means if there is any cutback in GM, if there is any area in terms of spinoffs that will directly affect his riding.

If the member would care to read the legislation to which I am directing my attention, we are talking about aspects and embellishments to the Labour Relations Act which will provide a certain stability for the institutional construction industry. We know that is necessary but we cannot just leave the bill without recognizing there is action required by the government which has heretofore not been in existence.

We need action. We need a government in Ontario to stand up and say what it is going to do to create wealth in this province, what it is going to do to create jobs in this province, what it is going to do to send out a message to people, not only within this province but outside the province, that this is a place to invest.

We want to talk to that small business entrepreneur, the young man or woman with a little capital, either in terms of cash or intellect, who is looking to set up a business, looking to create a job. They are taking a look at a whole variety of factors as to where they are going to locate, and we want to make certain they locate in this province.

But we do not see that. What we see is people leaving the province. What we see are the wrong messages being sent out by government. What we see is the message to business that we in many ways do not care; that is not our agenda.

I have some suspicions as to what the government's agenda is, but I know I have to deal directly with the bill at hand, so I cannot in any way, shape or form deal with the suspicions I have.

Mr Stockwell: Go ahead.

Mr Offer: I seem to be encouraged to do so, but I know it is important to stay on the Labour Relations Amendment Act of 1991.

The member for Durham Centre says: "What does this have to do with the bill? Why are you talking about the recession? Why are you talking about lack of employment? Why are you talking about people out of work?"

We are talking about it because, although we agree wholeheartedly with the bill, it is a manifestation of the inability of a government to deal with issues expeditiously when they have to be dealt with, at the time. This government had to be prodded. The government had to be pushed, prodded, moved to deal with three amendments which the opposition parties agreed to.

I guess everybody watching TV is wondering, "Why wouldn't the government just introduce them and pass them at the earliest opportunity?" They did not. We do not know. Everything that this government attempts to do has to be done and pushed along with incredible commitment on the part of the opposition.

I know you are now reading the bill, Mr Speaker. I think that is quite important. You and I were first elected in the same election in 1985, if I recall correctly, and I know of your great concern about the recession and what it means to your constituents. We all know what it means to every particular riding.

In this bill, as I was indicating earlier, three things happened. The first is, the agreements of two years' duration are expanded one year to three years. Very important. It enhances a stability -- I would not want anyone to be left with the impression that I feel the market is not stable. It is, but it can be made more stable. By expanding contracts from two to three years, we achieve that.

Another area is the secretariat. Those who spoke to me know that this was probably a concern I had. I had a concern as to how this secretariat would be funded. I had a concern as to whether there was total and full agreement on this issue -- not on the need for data analysis, that is clear -- but on the way it is going to be funded.

Those who spoke to me realized I had a concern about that. They convinced me -- and I stand here convinced and supportive -- that the funding of the secretariat, though not specifically outlined in the legislation, is one about which there is, first, no suspicion and, second, agreement. As such, that area of the bill, which caused me some concern, was alleviated.

Third, the matter of regional votes, I have spoken about earlier. I bring those points up because it is clear that these issues, which were brought forward in a report -- I believe it is the Adams report -- earlier on, were addressed clearly in that report. So the issues were not a surprise. The issues were not something which fell down on a Monday and had to be addressed on a Tuesday.

These were matters people knew were going to have to be addressed, but the government, which could have introduced this bill very early on -- and I know for a fact it could have introduced this bill earlier -- refused to do so. I do not know why. I think it is probably because they were dithering about something or other. I do not know what, but I know this bill was prepared. I know they knew that we were not going to oppose it, I know they knew there was not going to be any opposition from the third party and I know they knew the people who would be directly affected by the bill were in agreement with the bill. They had all those pieces in place.

1650

Why would the government continue to dither about? Why would the Minister of Labour refuse to introduce the bill? I do not know why, but I want those who have spoken to me about these aspects of the bill to recognize that I speak in favour not only of the substance of the bill, but also of its passage. I still have a suspicion as to why the government, on an issue where everyone agreed, refused to act at what I feel would have been the earliest possible opportunity. I believe they missed that by months and so they have created a very high degree of stress in the industry.

Why, members are probably asking? If they are, I have the answer. This bill has to be passed this session, whenever this session will end, but it must be passed. This bill has to be in place when the new contracts take effect. I am not exactly certain when the new contracts take effect. The parliamentary assistant is in her seat. She may be able to correct me if I am incorrect, but I believe the new 20 or 22 province-wide contracts take effect in April 1992.

Ms S. Murdock: By September.

Mr Offer: I see her shaking her head in the affirmative so I think we are just about correct on that.

If this House adjourns without the passage of this bill, then we cannot get this bill passed in time. Why not? Because the negotiations are all starting now and those who are negotiating want to know whether they are negotiating two years or three years. That is crucially important. If the bill passes, as we in the opposition hope it does, then they negotiate three years and that whole negotiation and the aspects within the contracts are on the basis of three years.

If there is some question whether it will be in effect, then there may be no change to the existing contracts, whose length of time is two years. That is a whole different factor. I am very critical of the government on this aspect because it did not have to do this. They did not have to create this area of uncertainty. They did not have to increase the stress and strain on those who are entering into the negotiations. This bill could have been law weeks ago if the government had had the commitment to move, but apparently it did not and so that stress, that strain, continues.

I stand here today condemning the government. I know those are strong words, but I have met with the people who are affected by this bill who are condemning the government for having caused this type of stress and strain when everybody agreed with the substance.

The members of the government side are saying, "Well, now, why would you talk about the bill?" I remind them that we, and I dare say the members of the third party, indicated at the outset that we were in favour. We were going to enter into debate on second reading. We would talk about the bill, the aspects, the substance of the bill and what is important to us. I indicated, and the member of the third party also indicated, that we would be in support of the bill.

But surely we have the right to talk about the bill. Surely our right to discuss what we believe to be an important piece of legislation would not be curtailed or eroded because the government and the Minister of Labour lacked the commitment to introduce the bill at an earlier point in time. Surely we in the opposition parties should not be the victims of the glacial movement of the Minister of Labour on such an important piece of legislation, and we will not be; he should make no mistake about that.

We spoke about the bill on second reading and we are speaking about the bill on third reading. I know a lot of the members of the government have been elected for the first time, but I also know that in their year and a half of serving on the government side -- as we all know, the countdown has commenced. They know what committee of the whole is all about. They know that is an important stage in the evolution of a bill into law. They know that is within the rules of parliamentary procedure. It is something that is inherent in the democratic process. It is something that is available to all members of the Legislature -- opposition, third party and government alike. Many times when we go through the committee of the whole process, the government takes part by introducing amendments.

When we were dealing with another piece of legislation, Bill 70, the wage protection legislation, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, the Labour critic for the third party and I dealt with that committee of the whole process. Amendments were introduced, but all three parties and sides of the House attempted to make the bill as good as it possibly could be.

I will not deal with the wage protection legislation in any detail, because I still believe the government missed a very important opportunity to send out a very positive message to small, middle-sized and large businesses alike. It has fumbled, tripped and in a very direct way continued that negative message about Ontario and business. It used to be that we looked at the word "Ontario," at the word "business" and at the word "jobs" and they all seemed to flow nicely, co-operatively together. Now it just does not seem to fit. The fit is not right. There seems to be a grinding.

The words "Ontario," "business" and "jobs" do not fit right any more. They grind together. There is a chipping away. Many people are the victims of that grinding and erosion, and that has to stop. The government had an opportunity to deal with that in the wage protection legislation and failed. We tried, but the government failed. They have that big majority that can run roughshod over anything in this Legislature and they did it. They rolled up their sleeves and said, "We're going to allow the grinding and the erosion to continue."

Though we attempted to do what we could, we recognized that we also were going to be victims of this government's very interesting view of how the words "Ontario," "business" and "jobs" fit. Those who are out of work know that the actions of the government in trying to make those three aspects fit have been a failure.

We are in a very tough time in our existence. We have tremendous opportunities, though we have a government that is looking at the negative all the time. We have tremendous opportunities here, if only the government would talk about what it can do, not about what the federal government does not do, but what the province and the government of Ontario can do.

We are a big province. An example is this bill. This bill is an example of the opposition, the third party, saying to government, "We're going to stand with you on this bill; just do it." We waited and waited and waited and waited -- I apologize to Hansard for that -- and finally the government brings it forward, but not until after some very tough work on this side of the House.

1700

This bill must, and hopefully will, in our opinion, be passed. There are other matters in this Legislature which are of great concern to members of the opposition and the third party. There are matters which people recognize are going on in this Legislature which are at the very root of the integrity of this system. We know that. We recognize that this bill on its own is important. We recognize that the substance of the bill is important. We recognize that this is not a minor piece of legislation. We recognize that when the negotiations are commenced, probably very early in the new year, those who are sitting down at the table must know whether they are negotiating a two-year contract or a three-year contract. That is why this bill should pass. They have to know that they are talking about a three-year contract. They have to know there is going to be stability in this province in this area.

I alluded to the committee of the whole because there were members of the government side saying, "So why do you talk about the bill?" I spoke about second reading, about our speaking about the substance of the bill, which is our right; talking about whether we are in favour or against the bill, which is our right; talking about the reasons for our decision, which is our right; talking about our efforts, through agreement, to pass the bill, which is a courtesy; talking about our motion to move this bill out of committee of the whole, to start dealing with it on third reading, to again show to the government we want to deal with the bill, to again show to the government that this bill should not have been as other aspects of its agenda are, the result of dithering, discussion and inaction at a time when action, commitment, determination and effort are required.

Three hundred thousand people in this province have lost jobs. Hundreds of thousands are not going to be called back to the places where they were employed before. They have to look to new places. There are requirements and responsibilities for training. There is a responsibility on government to expand the options of people, to say to those men and women: "You have a variety of options. Your children will have a variety of options of employment. This is a place and a province where you can live, where you can work, where you can succeed, where there is an optimism and a confidence." In the bad times it is even more important for governments to say, "We know it's bad times, but we are working to make it better."

All we hear from the government day in and day out is, "Yes, it is bad times and we want the federal government or we want the municipal government or we want some other government to make it better, because these bad times are not the fault of the provincial NDP government."

It just does not hold any water. It just does not hold true. The fact of the matter is that the government is causing a great deal of problems not only with an agenda -- I am kind to use the word "agenda," but I will use that word. Those who are concerned with the direction of the provincial government would probably say that for me to say this government has an agenda is unparliamentary. They would say: "Don't ever speak about this government having an agenda for action, because that is just not true. It is unparliamentary. Talk about a government that is wringing its hands. Talk about a government that blames others." That is what people are doing in this area.

This bill is an example of where the opposition, and the official opposition, has I believe provided the route for a government to follow. I do not know what the government would have done if it had anticipated opposition by our side of the Legislature. I do not know if it would have even had the capacity to introduce the bill.

We have to ask those very tough, straightforward questions because in this example we had a bill, important in its substance, important in how it was going to impact and affect and resolve the issues at hand, approved by those people who were going to be directly affected by the bill and approved by the opposition parties. Still the government refused to act until very late in the day. They refused to act. I do not know why.

I do not see the reason why -- unless the government is encased in a basin of cement that it just cannot extricate itself from -- it is so afraid to act, it is so afraid to deal with the issues of the day. They are so afraid, maybe incapable of addressing the challenges of the day, that they cannot introduce a piece of legislation when opposition has even said they have approval.

We are in support of this piece of legislation. We are in support of its quick and speedy passage into law. We recognize the importance to those negotiating province-wide contracts, the negotiation of which will probably commence in January 1992, to be aware and to realize whether they are negotiating a two- or a three-year contract. That is important.

Those are the areas, one of which is addressed in the bill. We are in support of a secretariat that will help out in ongoing collective bargaining analysis and data examination. We are concerned about how that secretariat is to be funded, but on the basis of representations made to me by those who are affected, I am ready to put that concern aside. I am ready to say pass the bill.

1710

Certainly, we of the official opposition are in support of making certain that the voting results are not released until all regions have cast their ballots, that voting results for one region will not be released until the voting has taken place in all regions. There are three areas dealt with in the legislation, three important areas, three substantive areas, three areas that build a greater stability into an important sector of our economy. I hope the government is ready to deal with this issue.

We have done everything we can through our speeches on this piece of legislation, which is our right. Members should not let anyone try to say that for some reason it is irresponsible to speak on a piece of legislation, even a piece of legislation they agree with. That, I believe sometimes, is even more important. We still have to tell the people. We still have to have recorded in Hansard, in my opinion, the position we have on any one particular piece of legislation and the reasons for it.

Our party, the official opposition, has always stood in support. We have recognized the need. We want to do whatever is required to make certain that this bill becomes law. We have made a motion to take the bill out of committee of the whole House. Clearly, we could have had all this discussion I have just had -- members of the government side are probably now aware of that -- in committee of the whole House.

At the end of committee of the whole, what would have happened? It is not a quiz. At the end of the day, at the end of committee of the whole, after discussion back and forth, forth and back, it would then have been reported for third reading. Then what would have happened? Debate, not obstructionist, not delaying, but rather responsible, as members of this Legislature, to use this floor and this chamber to express an opinion and the reasons why -- that is what this is all about -- and at the end of the day to be accountable for that which one has said and for the reasons this person has said it. That is the essence of democracy.

Members on the government side seem to have the feeling that any speech made by any member on this side of the Legislature is, first, obstructionist and, second, time-consuming. My goodness gracious, if that is not a new rule of procedure. Mr Speaker, I know you are an expert on this. That is not what this chamber is all about. This chamber is not for obstructionist delays. This chamber is for debate. This chamber is to talk about things that are important, why they are important and what moves a member to take this position or another. What moves a member to ask for changes to any one piece of legislation: That is what this is about.

I find it galling for some members of the government side to stand up and say, "How come you spoke on the bill?" as they usually do not speak themselves. They usually have one of those two-minute wrapups to criticize a member for, my goodness, taking part in debate, a full participatory role in the democratic process. That is what this is all about.

I am coming to the end of a debate here. I am coming to the end of talking about a bill that is very important and that cannot be left without congratulating the people who came to my office to share with me their position on the bill, people who took the time to say, "Steve, I want you to vote in favour of the bill and this is why." They took the time and they made the effort. They came in and spoke to me about the bill. I thank them for doing so. I thank them for coming to the office, for answering my questions in a straightforward way and for discussing some of my concerns, because in no small measure our position on this bill and our hope that it passes speedily is a result of the contribution of the people who came to my office. That is what I congratulate and thank them for. Our caucus has benefited.

Our caucus has always been 100% in support of this bill and its passage. We have done all we can to make certain it passes speedily. I remind people that I am very critical of the Minister of Labour who did not have the commitment to bring this bill forward at an earlier point in time when approval was known by everyone, so that the consternation, the stress, the anxiety of those people who have to start negotiating at the beginning of January did not have to exist.

They now hopefully recognize once more that we are in favour of the bill. We want the bill to pass. We want those agreements to have a three-year existence as opposed to a two-year existence. We want the results of regionalized votes to be released only after all votes in all regions have been taken. We see the importance and the worth of a secretariat in terms of data analysis in the collective bargaining process. That is what this bill is about. The members should not let anyone say that it is a minor piece of legislation, as some members on the government side have said. It is not. It is a major piece of legislation dealing with important areas.

We are very much in support of the legislation. We hope the members on the government side will cut the shackles from their legs and move speedily so that this bill can become law. We hope that they will throw off the burden of inaction that has befallen this government in its existence to this date in time and that they will cut away the ice that makes them the glaciers of the North American continent, because this province demands action, it wants action, it needs action. Those people who are out of work expect no less.

I and my party stand in support of this bill. We only ask that the members of the government side have the courage to stand up in favour of this legislation and say: "We want speedy passage. We're ready at long last to make a decision."

1720

Mr Phillips: I want to compliment my colleague and to say how much I hope the public out there appreciate how hard my colleague is working to get this legislation passed. As he has quite rightly pointed out, it is an important piece of legislation. The construction industry, with the hardworking people involved in it on both the employer and the employee side, is looking forward to this legislation. My colleague has worked as hard as he possibly could to bring this matter before the House in a timely manner, to indicate the support he has for it.

I simply want to say that I think he spelled out for the Legislature the need for the government to get on to implementing it. Certainly I do not think it could have been clearer, the elements in this bill that my colleague spoke about. I simply want to say how much I appreciated his comments. I hope he has been able in some small way to budge this government. I thought the analogy used of the glacier is right. What we have got to try and do is really light a fire under the government that begins to melt this inaction so we can get this piece of legislation passed, the construction industry can get on with what it is trying to do, and that is to create jobs to ensure that the working people of this province have a merry Christmas. I appreciate the comments of my colleague.

Mr Elston: I have been able to be here and listen to the member for Mississauga North and his timely interventions with respect to this piece of legislation. What has been said as well by my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has indicated that quite clearly the government has lost its direction, has lost its resolve. In fact, it would be helpful if my colleague the member for Mississauga North could add in his windup remarks how he thinks the inaction around the introduction of this bill into the House has affected or perhaps impeded the development of an overall economic strategy for the province.

I understand that the bill itself, while it speaks to the construction industry, does not per se talk about economic planning. But it is extremely clear to me that as this government brings, bit by bit, pieces of its ideological format in front of this House, it either offends or in fact assists it in developing an overall economic strategy that was so eloquently spoken about by the Premier when he came to this House as we began this session in September.

From my point of view, the honourable member for Mississauga North, as he rose and talked about the inability of the people to get on with their jobs, to plan their lives, to get the construction going, to get more jobs put in place for the people of the province, has rightly identified the frustration with which this province is faced when this government is unable to administer in any sensible way and in any planned way a re-emergence of a dynamic Ontario economy.

If I might say, my colleague has done a service again for the population of the province by intervening in the way he has in this bill and will I think only rightfully be able to carry on with --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Elston: I am sorry. I am out of time.

Mr Offer: I would like to thank my colleagues the member for Bruce and the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. As I indicated earlier, we have attempted to impress upon the government the need for this piece of legislation. We stood in support of this legislation. We have done everything we can do to make certain that this legislation passes. But it is very clear that the government seems to be shackled, handcuffed, in a whole area of inaction, inability, lack of commitment, lack of determination, lack of effort. There is no co-ordinated approach this government is taking with respect to building wealth in this province, with respect to creating jobs, with respect to making certain that people want to invest in this province. This is clear by the lack of action. It is clear that the government just seems to be awash in what to do.

They are clear that they can, without any problem, say their problems are caused by the federal government, their problems are caused by a municipality or regional municipalities, but this bill is clear in that we are doing all we can to make certain it becomes law. We have taken every action to prod a government which has without doubt been characterized, and rightly so, as a government encased in cement, shackled, handcuffed, unable, unwilling and not committed to act. We are hoping by this bill and through our support that this will in fact become law.

Mrs Witmer: To show the genuine commitment of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party to Bill 158, I want to promise at this time that my remarks will be shorter than those of the opposition. I want to make sure we do everything possible to ensure the quick passage of this bill.

I have had the opportunity to meet with all the individuals who are impacted by this legislation. I know that because of the government delay in bringing this bill forward in the first place, and now again for committee of the whole and third reading, it has created undue stress for all those individuals. I am very concerned by the lack of government commitment to this piece of legislation.

I regret that it was not brought forward at an earlier time in order that those individuals who are going to be impacted by this bill could have been assured that the legislation would be passed. I want to assure all of the people in the construction industry that our caucus has done everything possible to ensure very quick action on this bill and we are prepared to move it this evening.

This bill has tremendous impact for many people in this province, and at this time I want to just mention how very important the construction industry is to this province, and not only to this province but to the entire nation of Canada. It is of tremendous economic significance to this province.

During 1990, the total value of construction purchased in Ontario was $40.2 billion. This accounts for about 38% of the national total. You can see how very important this industry is in the province. Expenditures for construction in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector of the Ontario construction industry were $11.2 billion. This represents 28.1% of the total value of construction in the province, and in 1990 there were 291,000 individuals who were employed in construction occupations in Ontario.

These are the people who were going to be impacted if the government had not finally agreed to bring forward this legislation today. Almost 300,000 individuals in this province were going to be impacted. That is 5.9% of the total number of people in this province who were employed. I think that gives some idea of how very important the construction industry is to this province.

As I have indicated, I am concerned and our party is very concerned about the slow movement on the part of the government in bringing this bill forward originally. I know it only came forward in the first place because of the prodding from both myself and the opposition critic. We had met with those employees and those employers who wanted the legislation passed and they had indicated to us the need for urgency, the need for haste, because the present agreements expire in April 1992 and the next set of agreements are going to take effect May 1, 1992.

1730

Now that we have Bill 158, let's take a look at the substance. There are three amendments, and these are amendments to the Labour Relations Act. The first thing this bill is going to do -- and we are very pleased that this is going to happen -- is that agreements from now on are going to be three-year agreements instead of two-year agreements. As I have indicated, they will take effect in May 1992 and will expire on April 30, 1995. This agreement is going to provide much-needed stability for the construction industry. It is going to encourage construction starts and it is going to allow that industry an opportunity for some longer-range planning. We are certainly in very full and total agreement with the three-year agreement because we recognize the nature of the construction industry and also the very important and very significant role that it plays in this province as it contributes to the economy.

Second is the amendment that refers to the announcement of ratification vote outcomes. We know that when ratification takes place, there is balloting in many regional centres across the province. Before this time, if one region completed its voting before another region, the potential existed for the outcome in one region to impact on another region because the results of the voting were released. This proposed amendment is going to prevent that situation from arising. No one is going to be able to influence voting in another area, because no ballots are going to be counted until all the ballots have been cast across Ontario. There will be no premature disclosure of results, all voters are going to be protected and it is going to be much more fair and much more democratic. We certainly agree wholeheartedly with that particular amendment.

The third amendment that is being introduced today, of course, is that establishing a body known as the industry secretariat. This is an agency that was identified in the Adams report, which looked into this whole area. As we know, it is going to assist both parties in collective bargaining. It is going to assist them primarily by providing economic and other information to the employer and employee bargaining agencies. It is going to establish a corporation funded by labour and management. This is a function they are going to perform.

These then are the three agreements. I believe the most important one at the present time is the three-year agreement -- the need for stability, the need for security in the construction industry. We know the construction industry has suffered in this province, as we all have, and is continuing to go through the recession. Certainly our party wholeheartedly supports the three amendments and we know they are based on the recommendations made by George Adams, who reviewed province-wide bargaining. We are very pleased because of the manner in which the consultation took place. We are pleased there was consultation with both labour and management. We are pleased that both the Construction Employers Coordinating Council of Ontario and the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario support the amendments. As a result of their input and their discussions with the members of our party, we are very pleased today to do whatever we can to make sure this legislation is passed before the end of this week.

I want to point out to people that the proposals today are very independent of the changes to the Labour Relations Act that are outlined in the ministry's preferred options paper. The provisions that govern the construction industry constitute a self-contained code within the act, and the amendments to the construction industry have historically always been made separately.

However, I want to add that the consultation process associated with the development of this legislation contrasts starkly with the consultation process that is taking place and that will take place in the future in regard to the labour law proposals. In this instance, Bill 158 developed in a manner all legislation should develop in. It was the result of management and labour first achieving consensus on the need for change and then sitting down to take a look at the issues and decide how best, in a co-operative manner and through consultation, they could resolve the issues. How unfortunate that we have the labour law reform proposals, drafted by the Minister of Labour after consultation only with trade unions, going forward in the manner they are, in a manner where management has had absolutely no role in the development of the minister's proposals presently being circulated.

In conclusion, I would like to indicate at this time our party's sincere appreciation to George Adams, Vic Pathe, Mike Vukobras, Joe Duffy and all of those individuals, employers and employees, involved in the discussions who met with myself, who met with the opposition critic, who encouraged us to tell the Labour minister that we would support the bill coming forward and its quick passage. We thank them for the work they have done. I only say to the government that I encourage it to bring this to a vote. Let's resolve the issue before the end of this week.

Mr Elston: If I might add my congratulations, the member has been brief but to the point in indicating that it is time to get on with the economics of the province of Ontario. It is too bad we do not know exactly, as I said earlier in responding to some of the remarks by the member for Mississauga North, how this bill fits into the overall economic strategy of the government. It is of course a deficiency that this organization has, not telling us exactly what the bills we are discussing day to day will do to assist us to recover from one of the worst economic situations I have known during my time here. It certainly is an error on the part of the Premier not to cast an overall plan around these pieces of legislation so that we can have some demonstration that this government actually knows what it is doing. How does this fit into making it more possible for jobs to be expanded right across the province?

Today I was very much frustrated by the fact that the Premier indicated he had no information -- in fact, had not received any information at all -- specifically about how the GM announcements made in Detroit, which can have a very major effect here in Ontario, will be dealt with by his government. There is no plan in that way of dealing with jobs and the economy. There is nothing in this bill that makes it appear there is a broader view of the world taken by the government.

The member for Mississauga North and the member for Waterloo North have taken some time during the debate in this House to set out an expression of concern that it has taken a while for this bill to come forward. While that is clearly a correct view to take, I believe it is within the mandate of this Legislative Assembly to request the representative of the government -- perhaps it is the parliamentary assistant; perhaps the Minister of Agriculture and Food, who is I think holding reins over the House on behalf of the member for Windsor-Riverside, who has departed for meetings about topics unknown -- to tell us where this fits into their economic strategy.

Mr Cousens: I would first like to express my very sincere appreciation to the member for Waterloo North for the leadership she has given our caucus on this bill. I think the process that was followed in the introduction of the bill and some of the methods used by the government to proceed with it were most unusual. Had it not been for the leadership our Labour critic gave us in suggesting that we proceed with consideration of the bill, in spite of the very poor guidance that was coming from the government side, I would have to say that it might not be passing as quickly in spite of the fact that the bill, as she has so eloquently described, begins to show how business and labour and government can work well together.

Establishing the secretariat to somehow bring together both sides of the issue so that there is common understanding and the building of goodwill makes an awful lot of sense. The fact that we are going to move towards three-year agreements makes an awful lot of sense. As we begin to understand what the bill will mean for the whole ratification of outcomes of different results in different parts of the province at different times, it also makes sense.

I want to thank the member for Waterloo North for the way in which she has been able to help me as a member who otherwise might have reacted far differently. She has been persuasive in showing that the benefits of the bill are very positive and that it should be supported. I have to say that her leadership, in trying to get the government to rethink its other labour proposals with the same kind of involvement from non-government sectors, makes one awful lot of sense. To the member for Waterloo North, I say to keep up the good work. She is doing a tremendous job for the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party and for the people of Ontario.

1740

Mr Phillips: I too would commend the member for Waterloo North, who I think has done a fine job for the House in spelling out the importance of this piece of legislation to the construction industry. I think we should recognize, as she has quite well said, that here we have the employees and the employer working together. They have hammered out this agreement in a bipartite way. They have been able to look at their needs. They are recommending to the Legislature a more harmonious working relationship in the workplace. As the member pointed out, it is unfortunate that it came this late, but none the less we have a responsibility to deal with it.

Once passed, this legislation will permit the two parties to extend the term of the contract to find a way in which they will work more closely together. Many elements of the bill are a result, I know personally, of months and months of work on both sides by some very good leadership.

This province has been well served by the council that put this together, and there can be no more challenging set of negotiations that go on than the complex trades negotiations. We have many demands and many different working conditions right across the province but, in spite of that, the two sides have been able to sit down to work out an agreement and bring before the Legislature something that they are confident will work, something that they are confident will continue to create that harmonious workplace here in Ontario. I hope we are able to deal quickly with the bill and to meet their needs.

Mr Stockwell: I think the member for Waterloo North has proven to be a very clear signal in the sometimes laboured, muddied waters this Parliament has entered into on a few occasions. She has been concise, I think, not just on this piece of legislation but on much of the legislation that has come forward during this session. I compliment her on an in-depth analysis, and I would suggest a non-confrontational view of these matters. Clearly, supporting this piece of legislation shows that there is a degree of compromise and certainly a degree of understanding of the issues that we face in this province and in this House.

When the member stands up and opposes other pieces of legislation, I think it should be a clear signal not only to our caucus and the official opposition caucus, but more important to the members across the floor that it is just not a position that we take or that the member takes lightly, that a lot of thought has gone into the positioning of the issues with respect to the labour legislation and the announcements made.

I draw my mind back to the period of time when during the more controversial pieces, she was requesting impact studies of the Minister of Labour, which seemed like logical things to request. It seems to me that if any lesson can be learned from this debate, from both the opposition and the third party, it is that it is not always a confrontational approach that need be taken. Here is a piece of legislation that is adopted by all three parties, and sometimes, maybe not at all times, but on the occasional once in a while, the government could see there are serious concerns on this side of the House and by adopting recommendations or ideas strengthen its legislation. The member for Waterloo North is a perfect example of the calm, reasoned thought this government could use.

Mrs Witmer: I would like to take this opportunity to thank those people who spoke for the past few minutes. I would like to indicate again that there is very strong support from the opposition and from the third party for the very quick passage of Bill 158. We are very concerned about the construction industry and the workers in this province and I would certainly encourage the government to move and pass this bill at this time.

Ms S. Murdock: I just want to thank the member for Mississauga North and the member for Waterloo North for their comments because they have actually done my job for me in explaining all the details of the three different sections of the proposed legislation.

In answer to some of the questions that were put forth by the member for Mississauga North, it is true there are 25 agreements in the province. The date of expiry on all 25 agreements is April 30, 1992. As has been stated by the member for Waterloo North in the House one day, those agreements should be negotiated by the middle to end of September.

This legislation therefore is really important to the outcome of those agreements, and what I think is especially important about this is that this has been worked out by the people who are actually going to be affected by the legislation. George Adams has done a commendable job in making the recommendations, and the construction industry, both employers and construction workers themselves, putting this together along with government. An economic strategy and the stability that is going to be set are also very important.

Both members opposite have clearly stated this is something we should get on with. I am going to use the words of the member for Mississauga North and I am going to agree with him that we should stop dithering and let's move.

Motion agreed to.

MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA RETRAITE DES EMPLOYÉS MUNICIPAUX

Mr Cooke moved second reading of Bill 151, An Act to amend the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act and the Municipal Act / Projet de loi 151, Loi modifiant la Loi sur le régime de retraite des employés municipaux de l'Ontario et la Loi sur les municipalités.

Hon Mr Cooke: I will be very brief. I went through the amendments with the members of the Legislature when we introduced this bill for first reading. This bill actually delivers on commitments and work that has been done by the OMERS board for a number of years, much of which the official opposition would be very familiar with since a lot of this work was done, and it was consulted with, when it was in government.

The bill will provide for 70% legislated indexation on an annual basis, which guarantees protection against inflation for the 230,000 retirees who are part of the Ontario municipal employees retirement system. It also deals with early retirements and 30-and-out provisions so that individuals will be able to retire at an earlier age.

I believe the bill will provide for some needed flexibility within many of the agencies and municipalities that deal with this pension plan. It has been supported by most people across the province and most in the Legislature.

I appreciate the opportunity to be able to proceed with this legislation today, since it is the plan of the government and the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement Board to have these changes go into effect on January 1, 1992.

1750

Mr Elston: I would ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs if there are any people he can identify who have raised concerns about the legislation. I know we have had a number of people who have been urging this on us so that these changes can be made. Some of them the honourable gentleman has mentioned to us before when we were at another session of Parliament.

I wonder if he might underline for the public if there have been any people who have raised issues about funding, about the pension plan itself or about the issue of whether or not the caisse populaire program, which has been talked about by the government, is going to have any effect on any of the issues that are being dealt with here.

It is just in the sense of having a public interest in the security of the changes being made and the security of the plan itself that I ask these questions. Perhaps if we could have some sense of where those issues are in front of the House, we would be able to move on with our discussion of this matter fairly quickly.

Hon Mr Cooke: I think it is fair to say there have been some comments from some municipalities since the legislation was introduced about the additional cost because of the extra 0.5% of payroll from both the employer and obviously additional contributions from the employee.

The member for Bruce will understand and remember that these requests come from the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement Board to the government, and we simply facilitate the changes the board has requested. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario was involved, and municipal representatives from councils are on the board for OMERS, so they were very much involved in developing the proposals and were supportive.

That is not to say every municipality across the province is thrilled about additional costs associated with improving benefits, but I would say to municipalities across the province that in this time of very difficult economic circumstances, this will allow some people to retire earlier and should provide a fair amount of additional flexibility to municipalities. I think this will be very beneficial to them in the short term, when they are trying to deal with the decrease in revenues because of the recession and other financial difficulties they have and because of the very fair way we are going to deal with municipalities over the next few weeks.

Mr Sterling: I would not say our caucus is 100% behind all of the concepts within this legislation, but we understand the Association of Municipalities of Ontario is in favour of this bill and the municipalities pay the bills and are collecting the taxes in order to supply the pension fund associated with this bill. We understand that the rights and benefits that are being given to the former municipal employees, those receiving pensions, are roughly equivalent to many other groups who have the same kind of benefits, and therefore we will be supporting this piece of legislation.

Mr Conway: This is a very important piece of legislation that I think we should say a very few words about. Interestingly, this is one of those pieces of legislation, I would argue, that this Legislature cannot oppose, even if it chose to do so. I certainly have no intention of opposing it, though I would simply observe that one should, as a taxpayer, be very careful to read and re-read ministers' statements with respect to this kind of legislation. You would want to read it and re-read it on behalf of your children and your grandchildren, because a variety of calm assurances will be given to this Parliament like they were given to legislatures and Parliament a generation ago.

I have had some experience with a very interesting public pension fund that has become quite significant in the public domain in the last few years. I just have to recall that what the former Premier of Ontario, the long-time Minister of Education for Mr Robarts, used to say about that particular fund in the late 1960s and the early 1970s has not really withstood very much pressure and scrutiny a full generation later. So who am I to oppose Bill 151?

I would simply say that one should pay attention to what the minister has said and, 15 years from now, assess the reality, the performance, against the promise of this day, December 18, 1991. If the past record of governments in this Legislature vis-à-vis these kinds of public sector pension arrangements is any guide, a generation from now our successors in this place will be able to point to a considerable gap between the promise of today and the performance of tomorrow.

Mr Grandmaître: I would like to use the two minutes available to me to question the minister. The minister in his opening statement referred to --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): To be in order, you must comment on the honourable member for Renfrew North.

Mr Grandmaître: My colleague the member for Renfrew North said it was a fair bill. I do not intend to vote against the bill. We intend to support the bill. One thing I would like to add: I know that AMO and OMERS did consult and arrive at a reasonable solution, but at the same time I am a little critical that former municipal politicians who are on the board have been trying to

work out some kind of deal with AMO and also OMERS for the possibility of transferring their pensions to another pension plan.

Maybe it is a perfect opportunity to ask the minister how come active municipal politicians and former municipal politicians were excluded from this bill. I may sound parochial on this item -- as pointed out by my colleague the member for Renfrew North, this seems to be a very acceptable bill -- but I still question the minister on how come, if everybody was involved in the consultation on Bill 151, municipal politicians were excluded?

1800

Mr Conway: I appreciate what my friend the member for Ottawa East has said and I simply want to make the point again. I understand there has been a fair degree of work done by the government and the allied stakeholders. I make the point that this bill has real significance to the Ontario taxpayer. I repeat that I personally have stopped believing some of what I have been told about these kinds of pension arrangements, simply because the last few years have produced for me evidence that has eroded my confidence in some of the things parliaments have been told over the years. But who am I to stand in front of this train? This is a train of some considerable energy and support. I do not want in any way to discount the pension benefits of all the people who have participated in OMERS.

What I know of the OMERS plan is that it is well run and that the people who have been in charge have done, by and large, from what I know, quite a creditable job. I simply say that there are people I represent, people by the thousands in Renfrew county, who have no pension beyond the old age pension, beyond the Canada pension in some cases, and they will be expected to pay their share, both provincially and locally, of this kind of legislation and the entitlements contained within it. On their behalf, I make the point that there are significant consequences downstream from the passage of this legislation and this Parliament should not be unaware that those consequences could be considerable to both provincial and local taxpayers.

Mr Stockwell: I get the feeling that I have been jumping in front of freight trains all my life, so I guess I may as well jump in front of this one too. I have some very grave concerns, not just about these pensions but all pensions, and all government pensions. This happens to be a very good pension plan. It has been funded very well and is well run. I am not arguing that point at all. In fact, the people who run this pension plan are probably some of the leading experts today as far as pension plans and the operation of pension plans are concerned.

I think members are going to find a new debate raising its head in this province and maybe in this country and, I am not sure, maybe even around the world. I do not know their pension plans as well as I know this province's pension plans. The difficulty we are faced with is that there is a tremendous amount of money out there that needs to be committed to pension plans, and by approving agreements such as this today, the government is committing future generations to a considerable amount of money. If you look at this particular piece of legislation, you will note that municipalities have to commit some $22 million to this plan. We all know very well municipalities do not have a lot of money today.

Do members know what the difficulty is? It is very easy to let these things go through and not say a lot about them, because people on pension obviously have earned their pension. I am not begrudging anyone the amount of money he gets on pension or what pensions he qualifies for, but what it comes down to is that you have to have the ability to pay. I am beginning to question seriously whether the municipal level, the provincial level, the federal level and all levels are going to have the ability to pay in the next 10 or 15 years. I think we are setting ourselves up for a major fall and the bill will have to be paid by the people who follow us as taxpayers.

The argument will be put that these are accepted pensions and accepted changes because they have happened elsewhere. The difficulty with pension plans is that they are like inflation or negotiated settlements. One pension plan gets this increase and then everybody else wants that plus. It is just a never-ending race that has no finish line. The only problem with not having a finish line is that 50 cents of every buck paid into these pension plans comes from taxpayers. Taxpayers, as we will find out in the not-too-distant future, and have been finding out, are not an unlimited resource. I believe there will be a time when the taxpayers will not be able to fund the amount of money they are committing to today for some of these pension plans; maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next year, but potentially in 10 or 15 years.

I made my comments when this was announced and my comments are the same today. Time will tell how accurate my theory is on pension plans and the price of pension plans and the kind of money that is going to be needed from government to prop up pension plans. Really, with the increasing length of life today, in some cases people on pensionable incomes will start exceeding the number of employees who are in the plan and working. Those are the people who are contributing to keep that plan afloat. I think there are a lot of actuarial studies pointing out this exact fact.

I would ask the government and I would ask all municipalities, I would ask anyone who goes and negotiates to bear in mind that a lot of these changes they see before them today may seem affordable, but if they take those numbers and extrapolate them over 10 or 15 years, suddenly they are not as affordable. They have to remember when they sign a contract today not only how it is going to affect the taxpayers of the day; they have to understand how they are going to affect the taxpayers 10 or 15 or 20 years down the road. I do not honestly think that a lot of people who sign these deals on behalf of government give that as much thought as it deserves.

Mr Conway: I just want to underscore what the previous speaker has said. I do not want to prolong the debate, but I tell members that the previous speaker has made a very good point. We have another fund that my friend the Treasurer is struggling with and he is doing a good job under very difficult circumstances. But the Legislature should know, notwithstanding the good work being done by the government and by the various stakeholders, that what Bill 151 seeks to do, under a limited and controlled set of circumstances, is to formalize indexation in the OMERS pension. Who could be opposed to that?

I do not want to go home and face the firefighters and all those other people, and that is why I say I doubt there is a Legislature which can stand in front of that train. I do not think that parliamentary body exists. I know a government of a few years ago that was stupid enough to try to stand in front of another train and was mowed down, as one could expect it would have been. But the member for Etobicoke West ought to be listened to.

This indexation, limited as it is to 70% of the CPI and all the rest of it, is potentially an enormous cost to the taxpayers. Is Chuck Magwood not down there at OMERS? I know how the fund is going to be calculated from the point of view of performing to meet these revenue expectations. My guess is that it is going to be the real estate market. I do not know very much about the real estate business, but we had better hope and pray the real estate market is going to be strong enough to carry this burden. If it is not, Bill 151, as I read it, contains some significant news for the taxpayers downstream.

I can only speak for the taxpayers of Renfrew, because, unlike their MP or their firefighter or a lot of other people, the ordinary men and women I represent in the main have no pension. They do not want to wish that on their friends who are fortunate enough to enjoy this kind of benefit, but I say again, as a legislator on this day in December 1991, we had better understand the consequences of what we want to do in this connection and what it could mean if real estate and other opportunities do not materialize to support the enormous undertakings provided for in this bill.

1810

Mrs Marland: I have to place on record my concerns about this bill. When we look at the number of people who work in different levels of government, we already know that something like 51% or 52% of the people in this country work for government. That is all levels of government, as we know it, plus government agencies, boards and commissions.

When we look at that high percentage of people who work in that kind of employment category, I would suggest to the government House leader, who is questioning my figures, that perhaps he could have his staff research that figure, but I think he will find that if you include school boards and other "government" agencies that are supported by the property taxpayers across this country, and particularly the property taxpayers in Ontario, the figure is astonishingly high.

With this bill we are talking about indexed pensions. I do not know how many pensions in the private sector are indexed, but members can be sure that the other percentage of the population which supports all pensions of all levels of government through their money out of their pockets, through their property taxes and through their income taxes, have a lot of concern about legislation that indexes pensions when they themselves are not afforded that same luxury. I agree it is a matter that has to be dealt with very carefully, and I have a lot of reservations about a bill that guarantees indexing of pensions.

Mr Phillips: I just join the debate to say I share some of the concern of the member for Etobicoke West. I can almost predict with certainty that in about two or three years, as we in the Legislature wrestle collectively with our financial challenges, this whole issue of pensions and funding of pensions will be very central to the theme around here.

The Treasurer will know it better than anyone. I am not sure how much money the Treasurer has had to provide in the budget this year for the teachers' pensions but I suspect it is $800 million or thereabouts, perhaps a little bit more, and more credit to them, because, as the previous speakers indicated, that was something they worked very hard in the last election to ensure they got, and they got it.

The OMERS pension with this level of indexation is something that, yes, may right now be a municipal responsibility, but we all know there is only really one taxpayer. We pay our taxes municipally through property tax or we pay them provincially or we pay them federally. That one taxpayer eventually is going to be able to array before himself or herself all of the money that he or she is spending for public service.

Frankly, our pension is going to come under scrutiny, because there is only one organization that has a better pension than teachers and that is us. So we are going to have to also wrestle with that at some stage. But I guarantee members that without any doubt in two or three years all of this is going to be arrayed before us, and where do we put our money? There will be two classes of citizens in the province: those who have good pensions and those who have no pensions. Those who have no pensions are going to be asking some questions of those of us who do have the pensions.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): We can accommodate one final participant. The honourable member for York Mills.

Mr Turnbull: I want to congratulate my colleague the member for Etobicoke West on the points he made tonight. It is something I have commented on in this Legislature from time to time, the problem we have with pensions. We know that the CPP is essentially broke, and I think people in their 40s and 50s should have great difficulty with the fact that they will probably not get a pension from CPP unless they are in dire straits. We are creating here a whole class of municipal and provincial and federal employees who have indexed pensions, including MPPs and MPs.

Mr J. Wilson: We don't have indexed pensions.

Mr Turnbull: We do not have indexed pensions, but essentially it works out to the same thing because successive governments have passed legislation to effectively index it. By splitting hairs and saying, "It's not indexed," we are trying to fool the people. It essentially works as an indexed pension.

The whole question is, we are setting up a society where we have people who work for governments -- we know the NDP would like everybody to work for the government -- and then everybody else, and eventually the taxpayer is going to say no. I believe the taxpayers are saying no now. The taxpayers are saying, "We have reached beyond tax exhaustion."

I hope the members here tonight remember this at all times when they are trying to encourage private industry to be successful in this province. The burden they put on private industry, where taxpayers who work for private industry are having to fund this through their property tax dollars and through their provincial income tax and their federal income tax, is a very serious problem that we cannot afford to brush under the table any longer, because we are going broke with debt.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Thank you. This completes questions and/or comments. The honourable member for Etobicoke West has two minutes in response.

Mr Stockwell: I would like to thank those members who spoke to this. I think they all had very salient, well-thought-out arguments. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe this debate will not be a debate for the year 2000 and longer. Maybe this debate will come forward at a much earlier clip.

Much was mentioned about indexing. There are some figures available on indexing. The member was not certain about the private sector. Automatic inflation protection for full increase in the consumer price index is something only 0.5% of pension plan members in the private sector enjoy. Another 7% get partial indexing. But among public sector workers -- those are bureaucrats -- 29% have pensions that are automatically adjusted for the CPI increase. Another 38% get partial indexing. In most cases, however, they contribute towards the extra cost, to be fair.

It is going to be a very important issue in how each government deals with it. I know the Treasurer probably has some concerns about the pension plan and some of the other issues he has dealt with over the past few months. I spoke very clearly against the teachers' pension plan, one of the few members who did. I understand why they do not speak against it, but if history is to remember this Legislature for anything, I hope it will think back to these kinds of debates on these days when the warning bell was sounded.

They cannot keep doing this. They cannot keep going on like this, because the well is dry. There is not a lot of money left out there, and the last thing Ontario taxpayers are prepared to see improvements in is pensions. Maybe services to them, maybe hard services and soft services, maybe jobs, but I do not believe they are going to be very helpful when the government comes and tells them there is another tax hike coming down the road because it wants to give better pensions to a group of people who have the best pensions in this province.

1820

Mr B. Murdoch: I support the government on this initiative and I think it is time our clerks and treasurers were recognized. I know in municipal government, in which I spent quite a few years, a lot of our clerks did not have good pensions. Now that this bill has been put forward, I hope it will help them.

I have a bit of a problem with it in that we are in a time of restraint. We do not have a lot of money and the municipalities do not have a lot of money right now, but I hope the government in its wisdom, when the transfer payments come through, will look into this and see that the municipalities need the transfer payments, so that the payments are kept up and they will be able to afford to look after the pensions for our clerks and treasurers, and our people who work for municipalities.

I know back that when I was reeve in my township, when I first started as reeve, the clerk who was looking after the township was only part-time. A lot of the time, if we had to get something signed by our clerk, we would have to go out to the field where he was plowing or back in the bush where he was cutting wood for winter just to get him to sign a form. Mr Bothwell, who is deceased since then, was a hardworking man and he had no pension at all. But municipalities, and rural municipalities especially, have come a long way from those days now and people are full-time. They are not part-time jobs any more, which used to be the fact. Rural Ontario had a lot of part-time people and pensions did not seem to come into it. Now that is not the case and they definitely need their pensions brought into line.

I know we talked on a bill some time ago on the teachers' pensions. We supported that and this is just one more set of people who need to be looked after with their pensions.

This bill has been long overdue. I have some problems with the timing of it, bringing it in to the House now when it sort of looks like we are trying to force bills through the House just because we want to get them through. It is unfortunate bills like this were not brought in earlier so maybe there could have been longer debate on it or it could have been looked after before. But now that the bill is here and we are debating it, I want to tell the government that I support this and I hope it will --

An hon member: You've got a conflict of interest.

Mr B. Murdoch: One of the members thinks I have a conflict of interest. No, I am not a clerk, so I am okay. But I will say that if the clerks and the treasurers I worked with at the county level and at the township level had not been what they were to me, I would not be where I am today. They certainly helped. As I say, in the rural areas, if a rural municipality does not have a good clerk and treasurer, it can be in trouble; I will tell members that for sure. They make a difference. I know our clerks in rural Ontario certainly do make a difference, so I support this bill and I am glad the government brought it forward.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Questions and comments on the member for Grey's participation?

Mr Arnott: I am very pleased to rise and congratulate and commend the member for Grey, my colleague, my neighbour to the north in southwestern Ontario. I commend him for his remarks. Certainly in my riding of Wellington I can attest to the quality and the professionalism of the municipal employees in our area. I concur with his belief that they do deserve and have earned an adequate system of pensions. I would like to indicate also to the House that I intend to support this bill and once again congratulate the member for Grey for the position he has taken on this issue.

Mr Conway: The last two speeches are heartfelt and honestly offered, but they point out the wonderful situation in which we find ourselves here as local members. To hear two very solid Tories from Wellington and Grey say what they have just said is understandable in light of the train, because no one wants to go back to Grey county or north Wellington and say, "We don't think you should have some of the benefits I've got as an MLA." Nobody can do that with any degree of consistency.

The issue here is not reasonable treatment of those wonderful clerk-treasurers and firefighters up there in Grey or in Renfrew. I know what kind of laceration I would take if I dared to suggest that this bill be opposed. This is one of these wonderful elements where responsible parliamentary government is just potentially the most irresponsible of governments, because it is just like the poor old Treasurer today having to cope with Bill Davis's and Elie Martel's and Pat Reid's and Jim Foulds's excesses of 15 and 18 years ago. At this time of the year they would all get together and cut a deal around the teachers' pension arrangement, and most of us did not pay any attention because quite frankly most of us did not know what was going on. It was not an issue in 1974 or 1978 because the real implications were a generation out.

Now the Treasurer struggles, in a recessionary year, when he has to say to the Minister of Community and Social Services, "I would like to give you more than 2%" -- she would obviously like more and I can appreciate the situation. One of the reasons he cannot give her more is that quietly, in this year, he has to add $250 million to the teachers' superannuation account, $250 million additional in this ravaging, recessionary year. I suggest there might be something to learn from that experience downstream from Bill 151.

Mrs Marland: I think the member for Renfrew North paints with a rather broad brush. To suggest that the two previous speakers were speaking from their perspective only because they cannot go back to their municipal employees and say they did not support this bill is presuming too much on his part. I am quite confident the two previous members who spoke, if they were indeed concerned about one side or the other of this bill, would go back to their municipal employees and deal with it in the manner in which they addressed it in this House. I do not think either of those members is intimidated and I think both of them are more than capable of representing their municipal employees.

I think the issue with this bill is the issue that is being raised, about whether it is affordable. My goodness, what is it? Eighteen billion dollars that the workers' compensation fund is in arrears?

Mr Stockwell: Ten.

Mrs Marland: Ten billion dollars. I guess it matches the deficit of the current provincial Treasurer. It is wonderful to have these tremendous ideas about what we want to do for our brethren in different forms of employment -- I say "brethren" in the colloquialism of the members opposite, through their union friends and so forth --

Mr Stockwell: And sisterhood.

Mrs Marland: And sisterhood; brethren and sisterhood. But the real crux of this matter is a very serious one: What is affordable? As politicians, we have to stand and be very accountable for legislation like this that we support in reality. Where is the money coming from and is it fair to the people who are paying for it?

Mr Callahan: I want to ask a few questions. I would like to point out that at the top of the compendium it refers to future amendments to the regulation, and I have always spoken in this House in terms of regulations. They are known as the silent laws of Ontario, which means they do not go through the Legislature. We never get an opportunity to debate them. They do not go to public hearings, so the public does not have an opportunity to debate them. I would really like to know if we can expect that the minister will table these regulations so at least we can have an opportunity to look at them before they become law. Otherwise, what they do is slip silently by -- as one of the members goes, "Shh, shh," -- and become law without anybody having any say about them.

The other issue is that my good friend the Treasurer, as I understand from the press releases today, is not going to tell the municipalities the transfer payments until some time in the spring, when the birds are singing in the trees. This becomes a very important issue because while the minister is busy here in the House every day with his duties as minister and the House leader is here with his duties, the municipalities are awaiting word on that, to know, because they have to figure out just what it is going to cost them. It is going to be the municipal taxpayers who will bear the brunt of this, but in the final analysis it will be the provincial government that will be hung out to dry if it does not work out properly.

I ask, finally, if the minister will table those regulations so that we have an opportunity, as members of this Legislature, to carry out the sacred trust we are required to do, rather than just letting these things slip through the bowels of the executive offices, where nobody, not even the backbenchers, has a chance to look at it. They are going to find that their constituents are not going to be all that happy about these secret laws -- regulations that have been passed by governments around here for years.

1830

Mr B. Murdoch: First, I would like to thank the member for Wellington and the member for Mississauga South for their kind words.

To the member for Renfrew North, of course we are concerned about the money, everyone over here is, but that is not the point. The people we are talking about are hardworking people. We would be concerned about anybody in our ridings who had a chance for his pension to be brought into line. That is what it is all about. As I said, the teachers too had their pensions brought into line. I think it was the member's party that said that they were not able to look after their own pensions. Now we finally have it straightened out that they are a partner in them. There was a problem before, but now that has been straightened out.

To the government at this time, since the transfer payments are not going to be announced until January or whenever, I hope it looks into the fact that municipalities will need money to look after this. This is one of the things it has to realize now that it is bringing some of the pensions in line: The municipalities will not be able to afford to do it all on their own and will be looking for transfer payments from the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I am sure he will take that into consideration when he divvies up the money he has.

I just want to go back to my friend the member for Renfrew North to say that we are as concerned as he is, as all the House is.

Hon Mr Cooke: Very briefly, I appreciate the comments that have been made by members of the Legislature. I certainly understand some of the comments that have been made, in particular from the Conservative Party.

I should point out that the recommendation that came forward from the OMERS board was for a 75% rate of indexation. After analysis by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, as well as the Treasury, it was our concern that the 75% was not financially responsible at this point in time, given the difficulties that all pension funds have had during the recession. So we went to 70%. We believe, from all the analysis the OMERS people have done, as well as the government, that the pension fund can afford that rate of inflation.

I heard many of the comments from the Conservative Party about what has happened to some of the pension funds in the province, in particular the teachers' fund and the Ontario public service fund, and the province having to pick up hundreds of millions of dollars of costs as a result. I share some of those concerns, but I also point out that what happened with those two funds is that the Davis government decided, leading up to an election in the 1970s, to index the pension funds for the teachers and the public service. He forgot that they had to be funded. It was completely irresponsible. They should have been funded at the time. The employer -- us -- and the employees should have been asked to contribute additional funds at the time to pay for those benefits, but they were not.

What we are doing in this fund is lowering the rate of indexation to 70%, which is in line with the analysis of what the fund can afford now with its surplus, plus we are saying that the employer and the employee each have to contribute more so that the pension fund will be able to afford the indexation being provided.

Finally, I would like to point out once again that during these difficult times it is important that there be some provision in our pension legislation that will allow some people to retire earlier, because that will provide the employer with some additional flexibility without having to lay off employees, to reduce positions, if that is necessary, to cope with the recession and the decreased revenues that happen during a recession. That is one of the benefits from these changes.

With those comments, I appreciate the input from other members.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

SUPPLY ACT, 1992 / LOI DE CRÉDITS DE 1992

Mr Laughren moved first reading of Bill 170, An Act to authorize the payment of certain amounts for the Public Service for the fiscal year ending on 31 March 1992 / Loi autorisant le paiement de certaines sommes destinées à la fonction publique pour l'exercice financier se terminant le 31 mars 1992.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Laughren moved second reading of Bill 170, An Act to authorize the payment of certain amounts for the Public Service for the fiscal year ending on 31 March 1992.

Hon Mr Laughren: Mr Speaker, I am not sure whether you would permit me to make a short comment at this point, but there is a very long tradition in this assembly in which the supply bill receives first, second and third reading without intervening time between the readings.

Mr Conway: I think the Treasurer is right in observing that there is a tradition of first, second and third reading on the supply bill. I am not the House leader and I do not want to speak for the House leaders. I think there is a sense in the Legislature that there is a desire to use the interim supply item as an opportunity to make some brief observations about the state of affairs in Hamlet's Denmark.

Mr Harris: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think we are going to be able to accommodate this. Surely there is one tradition -- we have broken every other tradition in the history of this Legislature.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): That is not a point of order.

Mr Harris: I will break tradition then and speak to the second reading debate, if that is the only way you will permit me to do it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): The honourable member for Nipissing is on a point of order. We will resume the normal rotation, and that is not a point of order.

Mr Harris: Fine. I will wait and debate it.

Mr Conway: I might be able to help. If somebody could indicate to the House when the interim supply motion might be called, it might be helpful.

Hon Mr Laughren: I assumed that was part of the negotiations among the three House leaders. Perhaps one of them could respond.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): We are at second reading. We are now moving into debate on second reading.

Mr Harris: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe it is a point of order. I know you cut me off before and you said it was not, but it is the order of the business. I think we could facilitate things here if we could have some understanding of the next order of business. It would substantially facilitate the orderly procedure of this particular piece of legislation in the normal fashion, without breaking tradition.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): I know there have been some agreements, arrangements and certain things that have been decided on. Does the Treasurer want to comment on the point of order of the member for Nipissing?

Hon Mr Laughren: Mr Speaker, I am sure you appreciate the fact that there is no attempt whatsoever to foreclose any debate on it. It is simply that there is a long-standing tradition by which the interim supply that fits in between the supply bills to conclude the fiscal year -- the interim supply bills are the ones on which debate occurs, and very wide-ranging debate, as it should be.

1840

Mr Turnbull: It was a long-standing tradition that if you lie, you resign.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): The honourable member for York Mills, that is not parliamentary. I will respectfully ask you to withdraw.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, I will rephrase it. I thought it was parliamentary tradition that if you told an untruth, you resigned. I withdraw the remark.

Hon Mr Laughren: The tradition was that the interim supply was used for wide-ranging debate whereas the supply bill was simply used to tidy up the fiscal affairs of government, regardless of who was in government. So it was not meant to be at all provocative to suggest that we follow that tradition. It was mainly in keeping with the reverence that members opposite have for tradition in this place that I suggested we follow that time-honoured tradition. In keeping with that, I moved second reading of the supply bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Mr Laughren reinforces that he has moved second reading of the bill. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

Hon Mr Buchanan: I move adjournment of the House.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): The Minister of Agriculture and Food has moved adjournment of the House. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Hon Miss Martel: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think the Minister of Agriculture and Food has made a mistake and may want to rephrase what he said.

Hon Mr Buchanan: Clearly I have chosen the wrong word, Mr Speaker. Adjournment of the debate.

Mr Mancini: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The understanding was that once we completed these two or three items, we were going to move into interim supply and have first and second reading of interim supply, which would give a lot of honourable members, who have been waiting all day long and all week and some a number of weeks, time to make a few contributions between now and 7 pm.

We have made agreement to adjourn this evening at 7 pm for a number of valid reasons and we want to stick to that agreement. But it was my understanding that we would have the opportunity to use this 20 minutes for interim supply, and I would ask that the government do whatever it is that is necessary for this to take place.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): It is a point of information and it is most appreciated.

Hon Mr Laughren: Perhaps it would facilitate the business of the House if I moved interim supply at this point.

INTERIM SUPPLY

Mr Laughren moved government notice of motion 33:

That the Treasurer of Ontario be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing April 1, 1992 and ending April 30, 1992. Such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.

Hon Mr Laughren: This is the interim supply to which we were referring just a short time ago, in which members on all sides are, if not encouraged, at least allowed to have a broad-ranging debate on all matters dealing with the public business.

It is tradition that the interim supply is to deal with the payment of the government's bills, whether it is for supply, services and wages and salaries of the public sector. Because of the nature of interim supply there has developed a tradition that members on all sides can talk about virtually anything under the sun that has application to the business of the province.

Members opposite will know that this has been a difficult year indeed in the province. We have had to cope with an extremely severe recession and we have done so to the best of our ability. There will always be those who believe we should be taking a different course.

When I was in Ottawa last week with the other ministers of finance from across the country and the federal minister, it was obvious the federal government believes that Ontario's fiscal policy is out of whack, that we should not be running a deficit, or at least as large a deficit as we are, and we in Ontario, the government at least, believe the monetary policy of the federal government is out of whack. So you do get these honest differences of opinion, somewhat ideologically driven, but on the other hand not totally to that degree either.

As we debate this interim supply this evening, it is on the eve of the first ministers' conference on the economy tomorrow. It is a brief meeting, but I am sure the Premier of this province will be thinking of everyone in Ontario, and in particular of those people who are out of work who have been hit the hardest by the recession this past year, as he attempts to convince the federal government and other premiers across the country that what we need is a united effort to kickstart this economy and put Canadians back to work.

That should be our number one priority, and I can tell members that as a government we will leave no stone unturned in our attempt to do that. It is a case of trying to convince the federal government that simply racheting down the economy through high interest rates and a high dollar -- although the interest rates have dropped somewhat, they are still very high interest rates in the historical sense.

We will be trying very hard tomorrow as a province and as a government representing all the people of Ontario to convince the federal government that its medicine has been too harsh. They may consider the operation to have been a success because the rate of inflation has dropped but, on the other hand, what good is a successful operation if the patient dies? We will be trying to convince the federal government that it is necessary that it take a hard second look at its monetary policy, because we really do not think the present system is working.

I encourage the contribution of other members, because as you know, Mr Speaker, all wisdom does not reside in any government, and I look forward to the contributions from the members opposite.

Mr Conway: I want to give my friend the member for Brampton South some opportunity, and this is just by way of a comment -- I will myself be within reach of the national capital later this week, and I expect old Bytown will be just aglow with creative energy now that the troika of Rae, Harcourt and Romanow, with scribbler Penikett someplace in the corner -- I just cannot imagine the sort of energy those three people will bring. I mean, having Mike Harcourt there will be like having Frank Miller, because having heard Mike Harcourt over the last couple of months, I am very comforted by the fact that this is one protest movement that has been becalmed.

I simply have to say, in a very ecumenical way, that I have heard Mike Harcourt in recent weeks opine on the economy and he would make Frank Miller sound like a Liberal in a hurry, to say nothing of a Tory in reverse. I simply have to say that when we get those democratic socialists together, now that they have got the bit of power and responsibility in their teeth, we will expect that no end of creativity will flow from their pens.

We are all confident that what we saw here today was some kind of almost pre-Christmas subterfuge. We know there has to be more; it cannot be this shallow; it cannot be this transparent; it cannot be this lame. Once the Treasurer observes that it is only a two-hour meeting, and I am sure it will be a two-hour meeting, perhaps even a two-and-a-half-hour meeting -- for those of us who have listened to the Treasurer over the years, we have got to know and we have got to believe that there is certainly more than we heard today.

1850

Mrs Marland: It is really interesting when our revered Treasurer stands up and says this is the piece of legislation that gives the government the opportunity to pay its bills. We would be ecstatically happy tonight if in fact the Treasurer was paying the bills, but the people who are paying the bills are not in this chamber, nor are they in the Treasury office or in the offices of any of the ministries of this socialist government in Ontario today. The people who pay the bills are the people who are not elected to office or the people who work for those elected people. The people who pay the bills, tragically without any option or choice, are the taxpayers of this province.

The Treasurer says this is a significant night because it is the eve of the first ministers' conference tomorrow, as though some wonderful solution is going to come out of this conference of first ministers on the national economy. My goodness, if this province cannot even get its act together because of the Premier's socialist philosophy and doctrine, what chance does the national scene have when it joins together with yet two other socialist governments across this country? It is a very sad eve, as a matter of fact. I do not see it as a celebration in any way at all and I do not share this Treasurer's optimism whatsoever.

I am very reluctant to support any legislation that helps this government pay the bills with the money of the taxpayers of this province, who are already taxed to death. The money that is being spent is not even just the current taxpayers'; it is the future taxpayers' as well.

Mr Bisson: We have arrived at that time when we have to come to this position of making sure we pass this very important legislation in order to pay the bills. I think the Treasurer said quite adequately at the very beginning that we find ourselves in very difficult times. We find ourselves in a situation where government revenues, because of what has happened in our economy, because of things directly related to some of the policies of former governments and also what has happened in regard to the global economy, have really taken an effect.

I think it comes down to one very basic thing: The people of this province, like the people in any other jurisdiction, demand services from their government. They want to make sure that if they should be ill, they have health care. They want to make sure that when they go on the roads, those roads are maintained. They want to make sure they have decent, affordable housing. They want to make sure they obtain those services from the government of this province. For that there is a price.

The member opposite from the Conservative Party spoke at some length for the past two minutes and I note mentioned the word "socialist" at least seven times in two minutes. I am really glad she is taking adherence to that term, because it is something I am quite proud of saying, that I actually am a socialist. I have no problem saying that.

The point is that we clearly have some decisions to make. Those decisions have to do with how we take direction in order to pay for those services. We made a decision in the last budget that we were not going to cut and slash and put those people who really need those services in a position of not being able to get those services because we had taken an attitude such as the Conservatives are trying to point out to us now.

I will only point out that the federal Tories, the counsins in Ottawa of these provincial Tories, are running a deficit of almost $30 billion a year. I do not think there are any lessons to be drawn from that type of ideology. I think people clearly understand what the province is up against. We need to be able to manage this way over a longer period of time to try to make sure we have adequate resources to pay for those services.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): We can accommodate one final participant in questions and/or comments. Seeing none, the honourable Treasurer has two minutes in response.

Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciate this opportunity. I did not expect it. I know there are members opposite who do not agree with the economic and fiscal policy of the government. The member for Mississauga South probably expresses it very well, in that she believes we should not have run up a deficit and that we should instead have reduced services and laid off employees. I looked at what Newfoundland did, for example. I tried to make a comparison to what they did to keep their deficit down. To draw the equivalence, I believe we would have had to lay off about 18,000 Ontario government employees. That is an unbelievable number. We are simply not prepared to do that. I have never believed that is the cause of the problem in this province; therefore, it is not the solution either.

I think it is fine to talk about a deficit that is too high, but also, I am still waiting, especially for members of the third party, especially them -- not so much the official opposition because they agree we should be spending more money, at least they seem to in their questions in the House and statements I hear them making. But the third party seems to think we should be reducing our expenditures dramatically and should not have this deficit, but they will not tell me how. Oh, they come up with some small solutions that would save a little bit of money, but they will not deal with the full $9.7-billion deficit.

They carefully, studiously avoid having to deal with the whole question of exactly what they would cut in order to save $10 billion in this province. They do not know and they do not have the nerve to say what they would do if they did think they knew.

Mr Callahan: As we wind down, I am going to give the Treasurer a Christmas present. I would like to give him what might be a hypothetical case.

In my riding of Brampton South and my colleague's riding of Brampton North, what if the community owned 46 acres of land? What if they have owned that land since about 20 years ago? What if they had $9 million committed to them by the regional council of our community? What if the developer who is selling houses in that community was giving $100 for each house that was sold, amounting to, I think, the tune of about $2 million? What if you had $11 million and 46 acres of land? Would that not be a good deal for this government to establish a health care facility that has been in the making since 1977, when I first raised the issue and ran against the former former Premier of this province to finally get something on that land?

My community is the 15th-largest city in Canada. It is growing by leaps and bounds. It has one hospital. It angers me when I go to places such as Midland and other areas around this province and see two and three hospitals. We have waited long enough. The people of my community had got that close before the election of 1990. I get angered. I tried to talk to the Minister of Health on a quiet basis to try to see if something could get going. When I find out from that minister, after asking her on a number of occasions to communicate with me as the member for that riding, and I hear nothing whatsoever and we are closing down on 1992, it is time for me to make it political.

It is unfair to the people of Brampton -- Brampton South and Brampton North -- a growing community. There is no reason whatsoever why there should be a further study done of whether or not facilities are available throughout that region. That study was done by our government. It should have been done by the previous government. That is something that cannot wait.

The people of Brampton South have picked up their own socks by providing 46 acres of land. The Treasurer should show me any other community in the province that was prepared to throw into the pot those kinds of resources: 46 acres of prime land could be sold for an awful lot of money. They could probably build the hospital themselves. They went through the district health council, which recommended this as being a first-class, first-time type of facility. It is going to service ambulatory cases. It is going to be a day surgery. It had gone to the stage of a model being built. Architectural plans had been drawn and produced. Nothing has happened since then.

My colleague the member for Brampton North, in whose riding it is -- I have been asking him to carry the ball in terms of asking questions because it is his riding -- asked the Minister of Health back a month ago about this project. In fairness to her, she was a new minister. She did not know anything about it. She said she would find out and get back to us. I am sorry, but my mailbox is vacant. I have not heard back from her and the people of the city of Brampton are tired of waiting.

I say to the Treasurer that I am not asking the Minister of Health; I am not asking this government; I am demanding it. A matter of equity requires that this project go forward and there has been enough stalling. It has been on the go since 1977.

I say to the Treasurer, on behalf of the citizens of Brampton, that I am sorry I had to get political with it, but when I ask questions quietly and do not get an answer or I get an answer saying, "We're studying it further," I think we have been studied to death. People could die in the meantime as a result of the lack of facilities in Brampton if this government does not get off its duff and do something.

On motion by Mr Callahan, the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 1901.