Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1004.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

HUMAN TISSUE GIFT AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LE DON DE TISSUS HUMAINS

Mr Henderson moved second reading of Bill 19, An Act to amend the Human Tissue Gift Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur le don de tissus humains.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): Some months ago, the parents of a young constituent of mine, nine-year-old Nicholas Martin, told me about the plight of this little boy who has a fatal lung condition and needs a lung transplant to save his life. I have a personal window on the life of Nicholas Martin because my own nine-year-old son happens to be in his class at school. He goes to school every day with an oxygen tank, and his life has hung by a thread now for many months.

What stands between Nicholas Martin and a new lease on life is the relative absence in Ontario of youthful lung donors for a lung transplant operation. True, the Hospital for Sick Children has a two-year-old paediatric lung transplant program, but according to the Toronto Star on November 26, 1991, the program had yet to see a single operation.

Across Ontario there are some 780 patients waiting for transplants, including heart, lung, liver and kidney. These vital organs are not easy to obtain. They must come from patients who are declared brain-dead, usually as a result of injury, because organs and tissue from people dying of many illnesses are rendered unsuitable by the nature of the disease.

At many facilities, thanks to education campaigns by dedicated transplant doctors and organizations like MORE, the multiple organ retrieval and exchange program, doctors do routinely ask permission to use organs when a patient is declared brain-dead. However, at smaller hospitals and some large ones, especially if the doctor knows the family and cares about the feelings of the family, it is very difficult for the attending family physician to ask a family already grieving at the death of a loved one, a loved child, whether parts of the body of the deceased child may be used to save another life. Often the request is not made, which is very understandable, although tragic in its consequences because lives are being lost for the lack of donor organs.

This matter came to my attention because the father of another patient awaiting transplant at the Hospital for Sick Children happens to be the Minister of Municipal Affairs in the government of Nova Scotia. I found out from him that Nova Scotia had enacted legislation a year ago ensuring that the request for donor tissue could not be overlooked when a patient dies in hospital. The Nova Scotia act simply required that the hospital designate someone to think of asking the family, whenever a death occurs, for permission to use tissue or organs, specifying that the request will not be made if the tissue is unsuitable, if there is no need for the tissue in question, or if the emotional or physical condition of the person to whom the request must be made -- in the case of a child, usually the parents -- is such as to make the request insensitive or inappropriate.

The moderate approach of this bill does not force the issue of consent -- even the issue of asking -- or of tissue or organ donation on anyone. Let's bury that idea right now. No new bureaucracy is needed to administer this bill. It does not create any new bureaucracy. It doesn't even require that the matter be raised if circumstances make it inappropriate to do so. But it does mean the idea cannot simply be overlooked. Somebody will be designated to think of doing it.

This Nova Scotia legislation is working very well. There have been no reported negative results. Dr Alan Macdonald of the transplant team at the Halifax General Hospital speaks very warmly of this Nova Scotia bill and of its results.

1010

The bill I have brought forward for debate in second reading today is modelled on this very successful Nova Scotia legislation. It is not the only approach that could be taken to the matter of assuring organ retrieval. For example, several European countries, including Belgium and Austria, presume consent to be given unless it is specifically denied. People who do not want their organs transplanted must register their objection in advance. Not surprisingly, about twice as many organs are retrieved in those countries as in North America. Nevertheless, most of us would have ethical difficulties, I think, with that approach.

The state of Texas has an interesting approach that requires that once an adult has given consent for the removal of his or her tissue in the event of brain death, consent can be respected without the approval or consent of next of kin. That approach too has merit, but my approach I think is gentler.

I have spoken to the Minister of Health about this matter. To be fair, she has demonstrated her concern and her wish to help. She said, for example, in a letter to me as recently as yesterday, "Let me assure you that the ministry shares your objective of ensuring that every potential donor is identified and that the family or next of kin are given an opportunity to consider and consent to donation." The minister goes on to express the hope that, "We" -- that is, she and I -- "can work together towards our shared objective."

However, I am baffled that the minister, sharing my objective, does not see the wisdom, indeed the necessity, of this bill. I even wonder whether, politics aside, in her heart of hearts she perhaps does.

Several weeks ago I met with the minister in her office and with representatives of several other relevant organizations, including MORE Ontario, the Ontario Hospital Association and the Ontario Medical Association. From MORE and Ted Boadway of the Ontario Medical Association and representatives of the OHA I learned about important work that is being done in the area of enhancing consent on a voluntary and cooperative basis without legislation of the sort I am arguing for here today. The idea, of course, is to ensure that greater availability of organs and tissue comes to pass in Ontario. I applaud that work, I applaud the work of MORE and I applaud the work of the Ontario Medical Association and the Ontario Hospital Association in this area. I want it to continue, and I know it will continue.

So I am puzzled that this bill, which has the strong support of leading Ontario transplant physicians and surgeons in Ontario, does not appear to have the support of MORE, at least at the moment, and I share the sense of dismay of those very same transplant doctors that this is so and that the minister, as of yesterday at least, is heeding the advice of MORE, not the advice of doctors working in the field. I do understand that, at least as of yesterday, this bill is not going to have the support of the Minister of Health when it comes to a vote later on this morning. The minister says:

"MORE's board of directors has reviewed its position on recorded consideration and advised the ministry that the strategy proposed in Bill 153 would be limited in its ability to achieve our shared objective. This conclusion is based on the broad loopholes in the draft legislation and on studies of the success of recorded consideration in other jurisdictions. I have accepted this advice," says the minister, "and decided not to support Bill 153 when it is debated in the Legislature."

Each of us will have his own views as to the reasons for that. Of course I would prefer that the bill pass, but I am quite willing to stand on principle on this matter, knowing that the bill should pass and ultimately, I am sure, will. I even have a hunch the minister may privately agree with me.

I have talked to several transplant physicians and surgeons in Toronto, London and elsewhere and they are strident and vigorous in their support for this bill. They do not share MORE's views of its so-called loopholes and they definitely do not share MORE's view that voluntary compliance with measures for achieving organ procurement is working well enough. In fact, they expressed dismay that MORE was not in strong support of this bill, dismay that the minister had as of yesterday accepted MORE's advice, and dismay that this bill would not likely become law. I think that they, along with the parents of children awaiting transplants in Ontario, will make their dismay well known in the months to come. Should this bill not pass today, I wouldn't be surprised to see a very similar piece of legislation come forward again very soon.

I will save my further remarks, Mr Speaker.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I'm very pleased to rise this morning and make a few comments on the proposed legislation and private member's bill. Bill 153, An Act to Amend the Human Tissue Gift Act, requires that if a person dies in a hospital, the administrative head of the hospital or a person designated by the administrative head must seek the consent of a person, if consent has not been obtained, to conduct a post-mortem transplant of tissue from the body of the deceased.

I want to just comment a bit on the background leading up to today's private member's bill. In 1990 the provincial government, the Ontario Medical Association, the Ontario Hospital Association and the multiple organ retrieval and exchange program, known as MORE Ontario, agreed to amend the Public Hospitals Act. This amendment was known as regulation 518 and it established policies and procedures in hospitals which encouraged the donation of organs and tissues.

As of February 1992, a total of 172 hospitals have policies and procedures in place which encourage organ donation. There are 36 hospitals without policies and procedures that encourage organ donation. I should point that out, Mr Speaker.

The eye bank has noted increases in 1990 and 1991 in eye donations since implementation of regulation 518, and the increased activity of the multiple organ retrieval and exchange program's regional communications coordinators in encouraging hospitals and staff to promote organ donation has also resulted in some increase in organ donation. We see that this increased activity by these regional coordinators has paid some dividends. Twenty-six of the hospitals that had provided donors prior to regulation 518 increased activity by one to five donors in 1991. Further, 22 hospitals that had no activity prior to 1990 now have provided at least one donor.

But despite the diligence of these regional communications coordinators, the organ transplant problem continues to grow. In 1991 there were 793 people on Ontario's waiting list for transplant organs. This represents a sizeable rise from the previous year, when 690 people were on the transplant waiting list. The increase to the waiting list is all the more significant because it came during a year of unprecedented activity to encourage hospitals to implement policies to promote organ transplants.

Again, there still remains a critical shortage of donated organs. In 1991, 577 transplants were carried out, as opposed to 597 in 1990, and about 30% of people waiting for a heart transplant will die on the waiting list.

This backdrop of increased waitings lists and a shortage of donated organs has caused, I believe, the member for Etobicoke-Humber to introduce this private member's bill this morning. This private member's bill replicates legislation passed by the province of Nova Scotia in 1991, and I think it's important that all members be aware of that fact. Nova Scotia passed a bill that requires hospitals to designate someone to ask the families of deceased patients for permission to obtain body tissue or organs for transplant purposes.

1020

While Bill 153 is not perfect, it does recognize the desperate need to do more in terms of meeting the critical shortage of organ donations. I want to talk briefly about some of the strengths of the bill.

Encouraging hospitals to do more does not appear to be solving the problem. Physicians have not been motivated to be more receptive to obtaining organ donations. Nurses, however, have been motivated, yet attempts to include organ donor information in nursing school curricula have proven unsuccessful.

In the Minister of Health's letter of yesterday to Dr Henderson, Frances Lankin said she would not support Bill 153 because of loopholes in the legislation, which she did not specify, and on the basis of studies that she claims to have access to, studies of the success of recorded consideration in other jurisdictions. On the basis of these studies the minister has said that she will not support Dr Henderson's private member's bill.

Dr Cal Stiller disagrees with the minister. I should point out that Dr Stiller is a professor of medicine at the University of Western Ontario. He says:

"In some of the 'required requests' legislations in the United States the number of refusals are high because of the fact that it is seen simply as an administrative requirement. This is to some extent addressed in the bill, in that the results of the discussion with the family or the determination not to approach the family is written in the medical records."

Another reason to support Bill 153 is because the government has failed to bring forward any solutions to this critical problem. Even as recently as yesterday, the minister continues to talk about solutions instead of acting to implement them. She says, again in her letter to Dr Henderson:

"The ministry will undertake several initiatives to increase the number of transplant organ donations, beginning immediately. Ministry staff will be working with MORE Ontario and the transplant hospitals to improve the system of donor coordination. In conjunction with MORE, they will also be developing options for an ongoing quality assurance audit of organ donor policies in hospitals and for enhancing the organ donor project."

The NDP government has had two years to bring forward concrete proposals to improve our system of organ donations. Instead, it chooses to continue to talk around a serious issue. I believe, and I'm supported by my caucus colleagues, this legislation requiring recorded consideration could alleviate some of the guilt that individuals feel in asking families of a recently deceased person for organ donations. Again, if sensitively applied and not simply an administrative requirement, Dr Cal Stiller feels that Bill 153 would increase organ donation in Ontario.

I could speak about examples in other jurisdictions, but I simply want to wind up my remarks -- because I know some of my colleagues want to speak on this important topic -- by saying that we are supportive of the legislation. Although the government has talked the good talk, now is the time for action. I think legislation is required, because simply encouraging physicians and encouraging hospitals hasn't really worked in the past and there's a tremendous need out there.

I'm pleased to have spent a couple of moments today complimenting the member for Etobicoke-Humber, congratulating him on bringing forward the bill and encouraging all members to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): First of all, I'd like to commend the member for his interest in this whole question of bringing forward the problem with respect to the lack of organs for transplantation in Ontario, because it certainly is a major need. The personal stories and the personal needs cry out for solutions, and our government certainly wants to look to appropriate solutions that will work.

There's no question that the development of organ transplantation is one of the great success stories of modern medicine. Within a few short years, especially since the development of effective anti-rejection drugs, we have seen organ transplantation move from the frontier of being an experimental procedure to where it is now the preferred and proven treatment in a very large number of cases. Not only does it improve the quality of life for the recipients of transplants; the life extension is quite substantial. Even from the whole point of view of cost-effectiveness, it's cost-effective. It's very much a proven medical technology that works.

Tremendous advances have been made and in no small measure it's attributable to such groups as the MORE program for the contribution it's made in its recommendations to the government with respect to improving the situation.

It's true that while advances have been made, difficulties still remain. Some of these difficulties are of a technological, scientific and medical nature and some are what we might describe as being systemic in nature, having to do with the human and organizational issues around organ transplantation.

According to a 1990 survey undertaken by MORE, for example, more than 90% of respondents said they would be willing to donate the organs of an adult family member, yet in 1991 only four out of 10 Ontarians signed the organ donor card on their driver's licences. Ideally, our numbers should be around eight out of 10. While the transplantation people tell us we have the potential for 30 to 35 donors per million population here in Ontario, in actual fact our current numbers are about 15 donors per million.

There are other issues. Some doctors and nurses, for example, have expressed their reluctance to intervene with grieving families and ask them to consider organ donation, especially when these same doctors and nurses have just used all their skills and expertise to keep a patient alive. They point to the great difficulty in moving from care giver to organ retrieval. Hospitals and doctors have also raised the issue of maintaining a donor in an ICU when living patients may need an ICU bed. There are concerns about the cost to hospitals and the compensation provided to doctors during the donor maintenance period.

What all this means, of course, is that our number of organ donors continues to be far less than the demand from donor recipients. As of March of this year, as indicated by the member for Simcoe West, there were 749 patients in Ontario registered on the organ waiting list. Two years ago, the government took an important step to try to deal with some of these issues when we amended regulation 518 of the Public Hospitals Act. Under the amendment, hospitals are now required to implement policies and procedures in support of transplant organ donation.

According to a MORE survey at the end of 1991, every hospital in the province that is equipped to play a role in organ donation has adopted organ donation policies and procedures. I congratulate and thank the hospitals for so doing.

The issue the amendment to regulation 518 did not address, of course, is the issue of what is called recorded consideration, when hospital staff are required to seek donor approval from families or to record on the patient's record why consent was not sought. That's the purpose of the member for Etobicoke-Humber's bill. Recorded consideration was not included because the experience of other Canadian and US jurisdictions where such legislation is already in place shows it has extremely limited, if any, effectiveness. If I might just quote from the report by MORE dated February 3, 1992, it says:

"There are mixed viewpoints regarding changing the current legislation, despite prior hopes. Outcomes in those provinces that have introduced systems of recorded consideration or required request have not shown increased organ procurement."

In the recent US national cooperative transportation study, the United Network for Organ Sharing, UNOS, found that backlash to required request legislation was listed as one of the 14 factors limiting the supply of organ donors. Furthermore, in our consultation not only with MORE but with the Ontario Medical Association, the Ontario Hospital Association, the transplant interest groups and the transplant centres, we were told there were more effective alternatives to recorded consideration.

What I would suggest is that we have to look at those other alternatives. Obviously in looking at those alternatives we have to look at the whole question of educating consumers, because at the present time under the Human Tissue Gift Act a person can specify that his organs should be donated, but for some reason this has not proved as effective as it should be. In the new consent legislation, which hopefully will be implemented shortly, it's clearly set out that this matter can be dealt with in prior directions. So that is one aspect: the education of consumers.

1030

In addition, we have to do more work with respect to hospitals themselves. We may have to look at changes with respect to the remuneration of the medical profession with respect to dealing with these items. We may have to look at compensation for costs. We also have to look at the whole question of the education of the medical profession and the nursing profession, as indicated by the member for Simcoe West, and I would suggest we have to work with the Ontario Medical Association to work out more effective ways to encourage the increased donations.

The reason the ministry is not supporting this legislation is not because we don't agree with the intent of the legislation; it's not because we don't agree with the need for more donors. The reason we're not supporting it is because we believe it will not be effective. Unfortunately the legislation does have a major loophole in clause 5.1(2)(c), because any time a physician does not want to proceed or a hospital does not want to proceed, they can just merely indicate that the request for consideration is inappropriate because of the emotional and physical condition of the person from whom the consent would be requested. I would suggest that this is such a wide loophole that those people who are resistant to obtaining those consents or asking for those consents would use that loophole.

For anything to work I think we need the cooperation of physicians. Putting what they might consider an onerous obligation on them rather than encouraging them might create the backlash and therefore result in not an addition to the donors, but maybe even in some case a backlash, although I'm inclined to think that this would probably be a fairly neutral legislation overall. Therefore I will not be supporting this legislation, because I don't feel it's an effective solution.

Mr Henderson: I understand I can reserve my 15 minutes for later, and I will if that's acceptable to you.

The Deputy Speaker: Perfect.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): It gives me pleasure to rise in the House today and support a bill which, by the way, has been renumbered from Bill 153 to Bill 19. We weren't aware of that until we came to the House today so we've asked people for responses to Bill 153, which is somewhat misleading.

I'm going to start by saying I think that in our role of legislators we shouldn't be bringing forth legislation unless it's necessary or extremely helpful. In this instance I would say that anything that can be done to enhance life's process, the quality of life, should be done. I think we have given, in the area of organ donor and transplant medicine, a great deal of support in the way of public education through school systems, through the hospitals and certainly through the public media and television.

It's our responsibility now to support grieving families that would like, I think, to have the organs of their loved ones donated, because in their desperate needs and in this period of grief, we've been told, and certainly in my experiences with the people I've dealt with for the reasons that I do in London at the different hospitals, that they would find and do find this process very gratifying and relieving.

The reason we don't have more people contributing the organs of their loved ones is because there are certain facts we know about: Approximately 30% have signed a donor card, but that donor card is unlikely to be available or known about by the family. Even when a person has signed a donor card on his or her driver's licence, hospitals won't retrieve organs without the family's consent. We also know that 88% of relatives in the English-speaking population, if asked, would donate the tissue or organs needed; we only know it for English-speaking portions of our society. We also know, and I think this is a very important fact, that less than 20% of relatives are ever asked, and that's one of the reasons for this legislation today.

Deaths occur in patients waiting for heart, liver, lung and intestine transplants, and we currently spend, in our entire health care system, some $40 million per year supporting patients on the artificial kidney who are suitable kidney transplant recipients were donors available. Certainly in that one particular area I think it's been proven that we need more legislation to allow the hospitals to move forward to make these requests to grieving families. The most important aspect of the bill is something that we can't put in writing, and that is that this has to be done in a very sensitive way.

In speaking to two physicians at University Hospital -- Dr Stiller, who has already been mentioned by my colleague the member for Simcoe West, and another physician who I think has advised this Legislature over the years in a very positive way, Dr Bessie Borwein -- they both support this legislation as long as it is implemented in a very meaningful way. Dr Rick Suprenia, who is the director of the transplant program at the Hospital for Sick Children, is very supportive of this legislation because he experiences first hand the loss of lives because patients are unable to obtain suitable organs from donors. Today I speak on behalf of front-line workers who have had a lot of experience in dealing with families, and I can only say that because of the kind of input that both my colleague and I tried for, we are in support of this bill.

When the member for Simcoe Centre says the government agrees with the intent and agrees with the need for more donors and then proceeds to say there is a loophole in the bill, he knows very well that if the government could be supportive of this legislation it would be referred to committee. If the intent is appropriate and the need for more donors is something he has said the government is in favour of, then I have to say that all we need to do today is pass it and fix it in committee, where of course we would have public hearings and look for improvements in the legislation.

It gives me pleasure to speak on behalf of the member for Etobicoke-Humber, who has introduced this legislation. I think with the intent, if properly implemented, this can be a very successful process that is not intrusive and can save many lives.

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I also want to commend the member for Etobicoke-Humber for raising this issue. I share his objective, as I think we all do, which is to make sure that potential organ donations are not lost. We all want potential organ donors to be identified and their families or next of kin to be given the opportunity to consider donations. I know that my mother was able to make a contribution of this kind, and I share the view that such a donation can help, even if only marginally, to lessen the pain of the loss of a loved one. This is probably especially true of those who suffer the agonizing trauma of losing a child.

However, I believe we should listen to the opinions of those who are most closely involved with organ donations and, in particular, the multiple organ retrieval and exchange program of Ontario, commonly known as MORE. This organization is not in favour of recorded consideration of why consent for organ donation was not sought in a given case because it is felt that potential donations can be lost in this way. They believe that greater gains can be made through education and training to prepare hospital personnel to communicate with families and to ask for and obtain consent.

I understand that the Ontario Medical Association and the Ontario Hospital Association share this position and that the Ministry of Health is working with more Ontario hospitals and transplant centres and transplant interest groups to implement MORE's recommendation for increasing donor referral.

I believe we are very fortunate here in Ontario and Canada to have a medical system which has the potential to make the best possible use of new technology such as tissue and organ transplants. Such technology has almost miraculous potential but also needs to be subject to constant scrutiny by the community at large. In particular it should have no commercial overtones.

I believe there is no difference of opinion in this House on the fundamental spirit in which organ donation should be conducted and that we would always attribute equal importance as human beings to both donor and recipient, something which is not always the case in some other jurisdictions.

We do want to increase the number of donors, and this is why I cannot support Bill 153, because it seems unlikely that this is the best way to achieve this objective. I believe very similar legislation is in force in Nova Scotia, and the Ministry of Health has been able to look at this and see how it is working. In that spirit I am not able to support the bill, but I do commend the member for bringing it forward.

1040

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I am pleased to speak briefly on Bill 19, An Act to amend the Human Tissue Gift Act.

I've listened here this morning and I've observed what the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health had to say. I think the government's excuse is pretty weak for not supporting a bill that would bring life and health to people. I find that a little disappointing.

There are other jurisdictions which I would like to indicate briefly. Bill 19, although flawed, represents a building block and a good starting point to reform the Ontario system of organ donations. In Texas, once an individual signs the back of his licence, consent to obtain organs is given and permission from the family of the deceased is not needed.

The importance of organ donation is exemplified by the fact that one donor can effectively change the lives of up to 11 recipients by bringing them life and health. So I think it's important that some of these facts be put on the record.

In Belgium and Austria the state has a policy of presumed consent. This shifts the onus the other way. Individuals who do not want their organs donated must register their wishes in advance. This system has produced twice as many donated organs as we receive here.

The government could do more to change the education process. This means not just health communities would be involved but society as a whole would be more conscious of the benefits of organ donation. About 30% of Canadians sign a donor card, but normally the wishes of the donors are not made known to the family. However, 88% of the relatives, if asked, would donate the tissues of organs needed. Unfortunately, less than 30% of the relatives are ever asked.

While the member for Etobicoke-Humber's bill does have some flaws, it is premised upon recorded consideration which should be obtained. More organs would therefore be donated, because at the time the families of the deceased are never asked whether they will consent to give organ donations.

Mr Henderson: Let me apologize for whatever part I played in the confusion about numbering. This bill was Bill 153 previously; it is now Bill 19. So it is Bill 19, An Act to amend the Human Tissue Gift Act.

I spoke before about my sense of puzzlement that this bill, which has the very strong support of leading transplant physicians and surgeons in Ontario, does not appear to have the support of MORE, and my sense of dismay, along with those same transplant physicians and surgeons, that the minister, at least as of yesterday and I guess as of this morning, still has chosen to heed the advice of MORE.

I mentioned that these same transplant physicians and surgeons in Toronto, London and elsewhere were very vigorous in their support for this bill. They do not share MORE's view of its so-called loopholes and they definitely do not share MORE's view that voluntary compliance with measures for achieving organ procurement enhancement is working well enough. I ventured the thought that these physicians and surgeons and the parents of children awaiting transplants will make their dismay well known in the months to come. Should this bill not pass today, I wouldn't be surprised if we see something rather similar come forward in the fairly near future. I hope so.

It does seem to me a shame, however, that we can't wrap it up here today. Perhaps it's not too naïve to think that may still be possible, because I know that some of these same physicians, surgeons and parents did their very best to reach the minister last night to convey their views.

Let me refer in just a little further detail to a letter from Dr Cal Stiller, who is the chief of the multi-organ transplant service at the University Hospital in London. Dr Stiller says:

"This bill, An Act to amend the Human Tissue Gift Act, is a possible solution to what has become a frustrating and life-wasting process in this country. Of those individuals who die today in Canada who could be donors, the following facts apply:

"About 30% have signed a donor card, but that donor card is unlikely to be available or known about by the family.

"About 88% of the relatives" -- when someone dies in hospital -- "if asked, would donate the tissue or organs needed.

"Less than 20% are ever asked.

"Deaths are occurring in patients waiting for heart, liver, lung and intestine transplants. We currently spend, in our health care system, some $40 million per year for supporting patients on the artificial kidney who are suitable kidney transplant recipients, were donors available.

"The bill before this House" -- and I'm still paraphrasing Dr Stiller's letter -- "is in keeping with the concept of recorded consideration that was recommended by a task force," which Dr Stiller chaired in 1984. That concept of recorded consideration, "was applied in University Hospital in London through a hospital-derived policy. Monitoring of the patients who have died in the intensive care unit" -- in that hospital -- "annually, shows that between 84% and 100% of all potential donors are obtained. This is done sensitively, with the needs of the donor family in mind."

Dr Stiller says, "I believe that this bill would increase organ donations in this province." That I think is the heart of the issue: The bill, if sensitively applied and if it became law, would increase organ donation in this province. "I trust," says Dr Stiller, "that you will speak strongly to this bill. I would ask you to remind the members of the Legislative Assembly that in this time of conservation and renewal, to allow life to be destroyed senselessly is out of keeping with society's wants and needs. Every organ wasted is another life lost."

Dr Rick Suprenia of the transplant team at the Hospital for Sick Children, the physician, the doctor, to many of these children, has equally strong views and is also attempting to convey them to the Minister of Health. In my opinion, a legislative thrust is required, in addition to more informal measures, to really do something about the too-low rate of organ procurement for transplant surgery in Ontario. There are powerful psychological reasons that inhibit some attending physicians, especially family physicians who are sensitive to the feelings of bereaved parents whom they know and care about, from feeling comfortable in approaching families about the removal of tissue from a recently deceased child.

This bill, were it to become law, would help a great deal. Speaking as a physician, I know I would find it difficult if I were the family's doctor. A physician, concerned about the psychological state of a bereaved family and with life and death matters on his or her mind for which he or she is personally responsible, may not always be the best person to request tissue or organs and it may well be desirable for the hospital to designate someone who may or may not be the attending physician to ensure that the matter is not neglected.

This is as gentle a legislative approach as I can think of that has a hope of being helpful. It respects and complements the voluntary work I have just referred to. It underlines and operationalizes the concept of recorded consideration recommended by Dr Cal Stiller's 1984 task force and makes that concept a province-wide policy. It does not press the issue of organ or tissue procurement on families when it would be inappropriate to do so. It simply ensures that in every hospital someone will be designated to make an evaluation about the appropriateness of the request, and it ensures that the matter cannot simply be overlooked.

1050

There is more. Nicholas Martin's story does not yet have a happy outcome. It is two years since nine-year-old Nicholas Martin was diagnosed as suffering from emphysema. The Etobicoke Guardian reported on April 19 this year that Nicholas is now on the waiting list at the Pittsburgh Children's Hospital. The Martin family's neighbours have started a Lungs for Nicholas Committee with several fund-raisers and a donation from the Etobicoke Optimists Club to help pay for living expenses for a family member to accompany young Nicholas to Pittsburgh.

Dr Rick Suprenia, the transplant team doctor at our own Hospital for Sick Children, tells me that several young Sick Children's Hospital patients are now on the Pittsburgh Children's Hospital waiting list, and the hospital in Pittsburgh tells me that it is doing paediatric transplant operations at the rate of one every two weeks and that OHIP is funding Canadian young patients to have their surgery in Pittsburgh at US surgeons' rates, which incidentally are much higher than in Canada.

Given that funding, at taxpayers' expense, at US surgeons' rates, wouldn't it make much more sense for the ministry to support this bill so children like Nicholas Martin have a better chance of having their surgery performed by the world-class transplant doctors and transplant teams we have here in Ontario?

Etobicoke Life newspaper on May 13 reported dramatic success of the Lungs for Nicholas drive, with every prospect that when Nicholas goes to Pittsburgh, at least one of his parents will be able to accompany him. But Nicholas Martin should not have to go to Pittsburgh to obtain his transplant. Other Canadian families should not have to struggle, as the parents of Nicholas Martin have struggled, to ensure that the life and death needs of their children are being appropriately met in the Canadian health care system, which relies on voluntary cooperation towards organ donation. Other jurisdictions seem to have been able to muster a more certain availability, and we ought to be able to do that too. We simply have to do a little bit better in this area.

That should not be interpreted by anyone as criticism of the efforts that are now under way. On the contrary, it applauds and I applaud the work of organizations like MORE, the outstanding transplant teams and world-class physicians and surgeons who are already working hard in several Ontario hospitals.

But I do believe we must give these worthy efforts some legislative support as well so the families of children like Nicholas Martin will not have to endure the protracted agony that accrues from extensive delays in the availability of transplant tissue and organs.

Towards conclusion, I want to say that I'm pleased with the debate we've had this morning in general. I want to thank especially my PC colleagues in opposition the members for Simcoe West and London North and Simcoe East for the wisdom and insight and commitment to action they have brought to the discussion and dialogue about this piece of legislation. I'm pleased as well to take note of the support in principle of my government colleagues the members for Simcoe Centre and Peterborough. I appreciate your support in principle and I hope that as discussion and perhaps some lobbying and protest materializes in the days and weeks and months to come, it may be possible for the minister to review her thinking and to decide that a bill of this sort is indeed necessary in the province of Ontario.

It seems to me that when an idea's time has come and its political popularity is clear, anyone can bring it forward and get the support he wants. In many ways, I prefer to be in a position of arguing for something that does not yet enjoy widespread political support, because it is the ideas and legislative thrusts that have merit but do not yet enjoy widespread support that most need articulate and reasoned support and presentation.

Some members will recall that many months ago I advanced a bill here that was a good bill and should have been enacted, but for a variety of reasons the political will and the political climate had not yet come to look at things that way and its support was slim. I said then that was not the first time I had enjoyed such a unique position and it would undoubtedly not be the last.

This bill should be law. The experience of Nicholas Martin, the Nicholas Martin family and many other families like them in Ontario attests to that. I ask for the support of this assembly. I ask for your very careful consideration of the reasons I have put forward this morning in support of this legislation. Each of us of course has a mandate to think of politics when we vote on a piece of legislation. My request is that you think also of young Nicholas Martin, Carmen Young and Ashley Hughes in Hamilton, and vote with your conscience as well as with your political savvy.

The Deputy Speaker: The time for the first ballot item has expired.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, was there still some time left in the debate?

The Deputy Speaker: Yes, there was.

Mr Elston: May I speak then, please?

The Deputy Speaker: Certainly.

Mr Elston: I was sort of informed that there wouldn't be time left to speak, but I wanted to be here anyway. I wanted to stand as a former Minister of Health to recognize the importance of the issue of transplantation and also to lend my support for the idea that people make everyone they can aware of the need to provide organs for anyone who wishes to have the procedure of transplant provided for them.

I have for a long time now been in favour of doing as much as we can to encourage organ donation. I have spoken with Dr Stiller and with a whole series of others. In fact, when I was first charged to be the Minister of Health, my first question was with respect to whether or not a liver transplantation program would be approved for Sick Kids' Hospital. My difficulty at that point was that I didn't know all the ramifications, and in many ways, I think, being human, we very seldom do know the ramifications of everything we do.

I have seen the development, however, over the last five or six years of a relatively more formalized system of transplant donation arising here in Ontario. I have seen it grow. I know we always, from time to time, wish it would grow faster. But it has grown, in my view, because of people like Dr Stiller and some of the other people who were mentioned by Dr Henderson, in a way which I think has been helpful for us as we digest everything that happens along with transplantation.

I am one who is very much unhappy with the idea, however, that a bill be brought in at this time when we are struggling under tremendous fiscal stresses that would invariably, in my opinion, cause us to build new bureaucracies in the hospital sector, no matter how kind, how careful and how helpful any individual is. When we institutionalize something like this, it causes me great concern because it invariably will take away fiscal assets from the real program itself.

I rise to provide you with that sense of my chagrin with this particular legislation and thank you for allowing me to speak even briefly.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Etobicoke-Humber, you have two minutes.

Mr Henderson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I won't need two minutes, I don't think. I appreciate the comments of the member for Bruce and I appreciate that we're of like spirit about this. He knows I have difficulty understanding his concern about new bureaucracy because I can't, for the life of me, see how this piece of legislation is going to create any new bureaucracy.

It may be that the administrator of the hospital would simply designate the attending physician as the person to ask and the attending physician, supported and backed up by an administrative policy, would then feel off the hook, as one of the PC members said, with any sense of guilt about approaching the family. It may be, if the administrator felt is would be preferable, that he would designate the head nurse or the nurse in charge or some other person. I think that decision can be made on an individual hospital-by-hospital basis. There is certainly no attempt to displace the attending physician if that seems in a particular area to be the appropriate person.

The bill says only that the matter must be thought of by somebody appointed by the administrator of the hospital and that this individual will have some administrative backup in proceeding to make the request. If, as some of the critics of this bill say, it is more or less happening that way anyway, I have difficulty especially understanding that any new bureaucracy would be created by this bill. All that would happen is that it would become a matter of hospital policy across the province.

Thank you, colleagues, for your input and comments this morning. I believe very strongly in this bill. I believe it's the right way to go. I can count. I think the arithmetic isn't here for this time around. But I think legislation of a similar sort will come forward again and I look forward to seeing the passage of this concept in the not-too-distant future.

The Deputy Speaker: The time for the first ballot item has expired.

1100

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Wilson moved resolution 12:

That in the opinion of this House, the Minister of Municipal Affairs should immediately amend the County of Simcoe Act, 1990, to restore that part of the township of Tecumseth that was amalgamated under the name of the town of Bradford West Gwillimbury to the boundary that existed before the County of Simcoe Act, 1990, came into effect, and that these lands will come become part of the town of New Tecumseth.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Wilson moves private member's resolution 12. Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My private member's resolution seeks to undo some of the damage caused by the County of Simcoe Act, 1990, which was one of the final pieces of legislation passed by the previous Liberal government. The resolution calls on the NDP government to amend the act and restore that part of the former township of Tecumseth that was amalgamated into the town of Bradford West Gwillimbury to the boundary that existed prior to the final passage of the County of Simcoe Act, 1990.

This amendment would enable residents who live in lots 23 and 24 along the strip of land that runs south of Cookstown to north of Highway 9 to rejoin the new, amalgamated town of New Tecumseth. It would also enable the town of New Tecumseth to have a more logical eastern boundary, which would be Highway 27 as opposed to an imaginary line that cuts across farmers' fields. The frustration felt by residents in lots 23 and 24 is best summarized by local writer Allan Anderson.

"One day some while ago, the residents of a strip of land not much more than a mile wide on the eastern fringe of Tecumseth township woke up to find that, without ever being consulted, this narrow piece of land had been given to the township of West Gwillimbury. There was no logic to this. It was a crass political play to compensate for a piece of land taken from West Gwillimbury and given to Innisfil. It was one of these terrible political decisions without rhyme or reason."

The residents who comprise this strip of land belong to three communities: Newton Robinson, Bond Head and the hamlet of Dunkerron. Newton Robinson is a quaint old village which features a 19th-century church and an Orange Lodge. Bond Head has deep-rooted historic ties to the township of Tecumseth. It is famous for being the birthplace of the renowned physician Sir William Osler. A plaque and a cairn honour his memory and are located in the former township of Tecumseth.

Bond Head is also the birthplace of Mr Ontario, Sir William Mulock. The deep emotional attachment felt by residents of lots 23 and 24 towards Tecumseth township, which was amalgamated with Alliston, Beeton and Tottenham and named the town of New Tecumseth, and the shock of being encompassed into the town of Bradford West Gwillimbury is probably best captured by Mrs June Chambers of Bond Head:

"When I learned that we were no longer to be part of Tecumseth township I wept and my family was in a state of shock for at least a week. We talked about it at the post office. It was really a strange place to put a boundary line because it's not at any crossroads. It cuts through farms. It's illogical. It doesn't make any sense. I think it's irrational."

I also want to point out that both my great uncle Jack Walsh and my great grandfather Jim Walsh, after whom I am named, lived in this area of Tecumseth township. My forefathers always felt strong ties to the Tecumseth township community of Beeton and also to the town of Alliston. In fact in those days it was very common for them to refer to both Beeton and Alliston as their towns.

There's good reason to amend the County of Simcoe Act. The amalgamation of lots 23 and 24 was done to placate the town of Bradford West Gwillimbury, which was forced to surrender some of its lands to the town of Innisfil under the Liberal government's restructuring legislation. Including lots 23 and 24 in the amalgamation cannot be rationalized on the basis of creating stronger, more viable municipalities or providing better delivery of services, because it does neither. In a presentation to Simcoe county council, Iain Mackay described the decision as a cynical, sleazy, political and opportunistic move that at no time took into consideration the needs of the residents of the area.

If the aim of the amalgamation was to provide better and more efficient services, then this goal has not been met. Because of the placement of the boundary between lots 22 and 23 of the town of New Tecumseth, New Tecumseth is forced to enter into intermunicipal agreements with the town of Innisfil and the town of Bradford West Gwillimbury to provide snow plowing and sanding. These intermunicipal agreements were not required prior to amalgamation and they would be unnecessary if Highway 27 was the eastern boundary of the town of New Tecumseth.

Also the former township of Tecumseth owned a community centre hall and a park facility in the hamlet of Bond Head. Library services were operated from the community centre hall and the United Church in Newton Robinson. As a result of this amalgamation the town now has to negotiate an intermunicipal borrowing agreement in order to ensure that library services are available to its residents. Hence I argue that the current arrangement lacks any semblance of efficiency and effectiveness.

I also argue that the decision to draw the eastern boundary of the town of New Tecumseth west of Highway 27 has served to weaken the town. Briefly, we have seen a loss of some 6% in the town's pre-amalgamation taxable assessment base. The town no longer has a viable north-south corridor on which to develop and it's severely affecting the town's efforts to compete for commercial industrial development.

By drawing the eastern boundary of New Tecumseth west of Highway 27 the amalgamation has exasperated rather than helped to solve local land use conflicts. The lack of a clearly defined and natural boundary line creates conflicting land uses. Confusion arises over which municipality has authority on land severances for those properties that have been split by the eastern boundary but are under the same ownerships. This restructuring has left Mrs Grace Scott in the awkward position of having her farm in both New Tecumseth and Bradford West Gwillimbury.

One of the objectives of the south Simcoe restructuring study and the subsequent legislation was to provide a model for reform. I suggest it is not a model. It would be damaging to hold up this amalgamation as a model when it establishes a boundary through farm lands and splits land ownerships between different municipal jurisdictions.

Finally, I want to ensure that the people affected by this forced restructuring finally have an opportunity to put their case to the members of this House. A goal in any restructuring should be to minimize the impacts upon local residents. This has not been the case for residents of lots 23 and 24. Many of these residents have lived their whole lives in Tecumseth township. While they were prepared to accept some form of change in local government, they did not expect the double whammy of ending up in an entirely different municipality. Sacrificed on the altar of political expediency has been the will of the people.

In a public meeting held in Bond Head in April 1991 an overwhelming 90% of residents expressed their desire to return to the town of New Tecumseth. A recent survey of land owners of the former township of Tecumseth found that 76% want to return to New Tecumseth. At a public meeting two weeks ago more than 200 people packed the Bond Head community centre and requested that they be incorporated into New Tecumseth and that the town's eastern boundary be restored to Highway 27.

I've received many letters. Diane Kelly of Bond Head writes: "In the 22 years I've been here I feel we have been treated well, maintaining the quiet agricultural nature of our village. I'm very worried that as a tiny piece of Bradford West Gwillimbury we will be swallowed up, overdeveloped and overtaxed."

David Chambers of Bond Head says: They" -- meaning the former township of Tecumseth -- "have had the maturity to exercise strict control on urban development in rural areas, especially in the area of Newton Robinson. They understand the value in preserving the unique 19th century atmosphere of this hamlet."

1110

Jim Dermott of lot 24, concession 10, writes: "As members of the community of Newton Robinson, we enjoy the farming community around us and see it as many people's livelihoods. For once I would like to see the politicians listen and follow the voters' recommendations: Leave the boundary where it has always been -- Highway 27."

John and Kathy Black of Beeton write: "It would appear that the new line was drawn in order to compensate Bradford West Gwillimbury for the loss of lands in the north end of their townships."

John Farmer of Bond Head: "While it is obvious that the intent of the boundary change is to place boundaries where such do not fragment communities, it is equally obvious that the present boundary dividing West Gwillimbury and Tecumseth is at the very best very poorly placed. Very little input was allowed by affected residents of the townships concerned, and it appears that change for the sake of change is less than desirable."

Finally, Mrs Bernice Ellis of lot 22, concession 9, who recently received a volunteer award from the NDP government, writes: "The two former townships are surprisingly different. Their terrain, their geographical locations, their local governments, their over 150 years of separate existence, their division by Highway 27 have made them socially and economically individual. One difference is the greater push for development in Bradford West Gwillimbury. The farmers' influence in the new municipality will be considerably weakened by the loss of their former neighbours in the long strip of lots 23 and 24. This change may have a decided effect on their ability to hold their own in the new municipality."

I know other members wanted to speak to this resolution. I'd be happy to make further comments in my windup remarks.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Of course on Thursday morning I'm always pleased to be here to take part in the debates that come before us and, in particular this morning, the debate on the resolution put forward by the member for Simcoe West.

I can speak to this resolution, knowing the area. Way back in 1957 I used to live on the 9th concession of Bradford and I must say that I know the area well. I've spent many an enjoyable evening in that community spot in Newton Robinson. My children enjoyed being brought up in that area.

The resolution asks for the Minister of Municipal Affairs to amend the County of Simcoe Act, 1990, and to restore that part of the township of Tecumseth that was amalgamated under the town of Bradford West Gwillimbury. Some time ago south Simcoe underwent a study by the municipal boundaries branch. At that time, eight south Simcoe municipalities were given two options: to be three municipalities or four. The then Minister of Municipal Affairs, your colleague, Mr Speaker, the Honourable John Sweeney, made a decision and picked the three-municipality option. He did that for one reason: The municipalities themselves were never able to agree.

When the balance of the Simcoe county study was being done, the study committee recommended that the particular area noted in the resolution be re-examined by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. The Simcoe county council rejected this recommendation by a vote of 53 for and 13 opposed.

The resolution has not been supported by county council or, to the best of my ministry's knowledge, has it even been supported by the council of the town of Bradford West Gwillimbury. A factor in their favour is that they're not objecting to being reconstructed at this point, but they have a preference as to which municipality they want to be in. There does appear to be more of a community interest with the new Tecumseth area.

Of course, against this is the domino effect this could have on the new municipalities which also have ratepayers who would prefer to stay in the previous municipality. The Minister of Municipal Affairs has said the decision asked for in the resolution put forward by the member for Simcoe West should be a local decision and should be handled locally. The Municipal Affairs ministry will continue to hope these issues will be resolved locally. If this is not possible, then perhaps the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act is the appropriate vehicle to settle any and all boundary issues.

Given my comments, I will not be supporting the resolution placed before us this morning by the member for Simcoe West.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): As a former Minister of Municipal Affairs I can tell you that amalgamation, expropriation or restructuring of any of our municipalities or regional governments is never popular. I can understand how the member for Simcoe West feels about this amalgamation or restructuring of Simcoe.

At the same time, decisions have to be made. I think the member for Simcoe West realizes the work that went into this amalgamation. People were consulted; people were for and other people or groups were against. This has been going on not only in Simcoe but in many parts of our province for a good number of years. I can remember being involved in the Sarnia amalgamation. It went on for 34 years. Now we're faced with the greater London area restructuring. This has been going on for 11 years.

I think it's very unfair to say that the minister, the former minister, or any previous Minister of Municipal Affairs, for that matter, imposes this restructuring. I think people have to be reminded that in order for the minister to introduce such legislation, an agreement, a resolution of council or county council has to be passed and given to the minister in order to write a mandate: What the future of the region is and what the future of the amalgamation is.

This morning I have to support what former Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Honourable John Sweeney, tried to do at the time of amalgamation in Simcoe. I want to remind the member for Simcoe West that a restructuring of Simcoe is still going on. I don't know what the present Minister of Municipal Affairs has told or guaranteed to the member for Simcoe West. Will he be introducing legislation that will be compatible with what the member is asking for today? I have no guarantee this will happen by the end of June.

I sympathize with the member for Simcoe West. I think he represents his people the way they should be represented, he brings forward their concerns. But even if this resolution passes I would like to remind the member that it will again be a divided issue. I realize that only recently local groups or individuals from these areas met, some 200 of them.

1120

But at the same time, I don't think this type of resolution or motion can be resolved in this House. I think the decision-making power remains with the local government, and this is what local government is all about. But I've noticed in the last seven or eight years that our municipalities are very reluctant to make those types of decisions, and we are being blamed. This government, like the former government, is being blamed for dumping on municipal government. I'd like to remind the member for Simcoe West that this is not new, and maybe it all started with the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, Darcy McKeough. I can go back to the days of Darcy McKeough back in 1968, so I don't think the member for Simcoe West can blame the present Minister of Municipal Affairs or the former Minister of Municipal Affairs for what is happening today. I think municipal governments have to take on their own responsibility and resolve their differences, and if they do, I think the provincial government and local governments will feel much better about it, because it will be their decision.

So I will support this kind of motion this morning with some conditions. I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs should consult the people. I know 200 people met recently and all said, "Let's go back to the original boundaries." I realize this, but I think we should consult the same people who accepted the original legislation. Again, I sympathize with the member for Simcoe West because I think he's trying to do the best for his people, but at the same time I think he has the responsibility to make sure that everybody is consulted if we are to go back to the original boundaries.

I am very concerned about what is happening right now in this province with local government. The Minister of Municipal Affairs is supposed to be the salesman, the promoter, of local government, local decision-makers, but what's happening in the greater London area is that an arbitrator is imposing on the greater London area a model of restructuring of the London area, and I think this is totally wrong.

Also, we've been talking about restructuring the Ottawa-Carleton regional municipality for a number of years, at least four or five years, and now, at the very last minute, we are introducing a hooker in the mandate of the commission. Now we're looking at one-tier government. Is it the intention of this government or this minister to abolish regional government in this province? I think it's very important that the minister should answer that. This is imposing on us in Ottawa-Carleton, and the minister has to make a final decision.

I will wait and listen to what other members have to say in support of this resolution. My support is very conditional; I will wait and see what they have to say. That's the kind of support I'm giving the member for Simcoe West.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm very pleased to rise this morning and speak to the issue of the restructuring resolution presented by my colleague the member for Simcoe West and indicate my support for it. I'd like to speak with respect to how the county restructuring issue has affected my riding and to indicate the support that I have for his own issue in his own riding.

For many, many years, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has been promoting the concept of county restructuring, mainly under the Liberal government most recently, as we all know, and of course various ministers -- three, I guess -- were promoting enhanced efficiencies of scale by making smaller municipalities one larger one. But I think what they were showing was their underlying lack of respect for small municipalities and the good administration and the effective government small municipalities are able to give to their people.

The county restructuring study in our riding was initiated in about 1990 at the behest of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, and in my opinion there were threats and coercion used to force the county to undergo the study. There were many statements made by the minister of the day stating, "If you don't undergo this study and restructure yourself, we will restructure you," and that was the sentiment that was going out. So Wellington county underwent the study, as I said, with what I feel were threats and coercion put forward by the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

So the study was undergone. It was there to find improvements. I am not opposed to any study and I never have been, but I was concerned at the time that the study might be biased because of the rationale behind it, because of the fact that the ministry was forcing it upon our county. I feel there can be benefits to shared services among municipalities, but I think they should always be negotiated locally.

In the preliminary stages of the study what came out was a plan, and various scenarios were discussed that would have really radically restructured Wellington county, reducing 21 municipalities to six, seven or eight; that sort of numbers. The people of Wellington county were aghast when they saw the various scenarios that were being discussed, because they sensed that their local representation, where they knew their local councillors very well, where they had local opportunities to go forward and make presentations at council meetings, would be lost. They were concerned that a larger municipal bureaucracy would be the result in a larger municipality, and that it would be less sensitive to their needs, and very likely that their taxes would increase as a result, and they were concerned about losing their local identity if their township, for example, was amalgamated into a larger municipality.

Of course the study in our riding proceeded, but the election intervened in the fall of 1990 and, as we all know, the Liberals were defeated and the NDP were elected. The NDP Minister of Municipal Affairs at the time shared his responsibility as Minister of Housing of the day, and of course the NDP's priority at the time was Bill 4, the rent control bill, and he devoted very little time to municipal affairs at the time. There was very little particular direction given to municipalities about county restructuring because we had a part-time Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Eventually, after some weeks of lacking direction, they were given direction from the minister that they should go ahead and complete the study, which is what they did. They underwent a number of public meetings, and I attended every one I could. There were a number of changes recommended as the study was finally concluded and presented to the minister, mainly with respect to planning, and out of 21 municipalities, there's a recommendation that the village of Elora and the township of Pilkington would be amalgamated together, and the two councils supported that resolution.

The study went to the minister, and that was almost a year and a half ago now. We're still awaiting a response, but I understand there's going to be a response from the minister within the next few weeks. So we're looking forward to his views of the county restructuring plan that was put forward by Wellington county after the election.

Since the study was presented to the minister, there's been a local election in my riding, as there has been throughout Ontario, and new councils have been elected in the village of Elora and the township of Pilkington. The new councils have a different view, frankly, than the councils prior to the study, and the amalgamation issue between those particular municipalities appears to be up in the air again.

The bottom line with respect to this sort of discussion is that bigger municipalities are not necessarily better. Small municipalities are very efficiently managed and we should be doing everything we can to retain them. We have to have respect for our locally elected councils, and if we believe in strong communities and local autonomy, we will not have a provincial government that's forcing restructuring on counties and local areas. If those who are promoting the concept of county restructuring believe sincerely in it, they will demonstrate the benefits, and there should be an obligation upon them to demonstrate the benefits to everybody. Locally elected councils which have the trust and respect of their local people, and the residents of the local areas, together must be allowed to have a direct say before any county restructuring occurs.

Of course, that sort of scenario is different than what happened in Simcoe county but in many ways we see a provincial government forcing county restructuring on municipalities through -- as I said, in the past threats and coercion have been employed. I do not support those approaches and for that reason I'll be supporting my colleague the member for Simcoe West this morning.

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): I'd like this opportunity to speak on this question. First of all, I can understand the reason my friend the member for Simcoe West is bringing this resolution forward. I think if I was in his position I would also be supporting such a resolution because of the support his constituents have for the change. I can understand that of any constituents in any particular municipality who are -- the boundary changes and they may not like the new municipality they are in. I think that situation occurs throughout Ontario. There are many instances of it.

1130

From my perspective and from the perspective of my constituency, I would not be able to support his resolution because it would be contrary to the wishes of the municipality of the town of Bradford West Gwillimbury with which I have discussed this issue. Consequently, on the same basis that he's supporting the resolution, if I took that as the basis for voting with respect to this resolution, I would have to oppose it.

However, that is not the basic reason I am opposing the resolution. The reason I have to oppose it is that, first of all, it is a very dangerous precedent to start reopening boundaries after they've been established because it would set up the whole Pandora's box with respect to the whole question of boundaries throughout the whole of Ontario and create a high level of complexity which would be very difficult to deal with. I think that creates a dangerous situation and precedent.

Second, I think it is very clear that the Minister of Municipal Affairs wants the local county restructuring process to work. He wants the county to determine the nature of the restructuring. In this case, we have a county council which has approved a restructuring process, approved boundaries -- 59 to 13, I believe was the vote -- and I think it's important to support this principle that where a local area decides to restructure, assuming the restructuring makes some sense, it should be supported.

I don't want to say that the restructuring proposal put forward by the county of Simcoe is perfect; I don't think it is perfect. However, I think you have to weigh the whole question of what is perhaps the best in comparison to what the local community wants and the local county council wishes. It's a question of making your basic value: Are you going to have the restructuring process work, are you going to allow the county council to make those decisions and are you going to accept those recommendations from the county council?

The other alternative, of course, with the whole question of government, would be to take a very centralized view and the Darcy McKeough model, view, approach to restructuring government. That certainly has a lot of merit in some cases and I have to say, as a former municipal politician and as someone involved in a wasteful amalgamation that occurred on one occasion, sometimes the provincial government has to take leadership in restructuring municipalities. I would not rule out in the future that a provincial government, whether our own or some other provincial government, may have to take the necessary steps to restructure municipal government in this province, because it may prove to be unworkable.

I am concerned about the number of levels of government we have in the province. I think there's a great deal of inefficiency in some of the regional governments' structures and a great deal of inefficiency in Metropolitan Toronto's situation, particularly with respect to school boards. We seem to have so many levels of government, and we have public utility commissions, which I question. That's another level of elected government. We seem to have this multiplicity of elected bodies and overgovernment in this country and in principle we really should look at this whole question of how we're governed, how we can have a more efficient government, while at the same time incorporating the input of citizens in the decision-making.

It's a very complex situation. As I said, I sympathize with my friend the member for Simcoe West. On a particular issue the merits may be very mixed with respect to that particular boundary, but on the overall principle I have to vote with respect to the overall principle of not opening this Pandora's box.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Are there any other members who wish to participate?

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome the opportunity to say a few words with regard to the resolution from the member for Simcoe West, Mr Wilson. I welcome the opportunity to make a few comments.

The member has represented his constituents well, and he brings forward the views, considerations and concerns they have raised and he wants to do something about it. The member for Simcoe West wants to restore the part of Tecumseth township that was amalgamated under the name of the town of Bradford West Gwillimbury so that those lands will become part of the town of New Tecumseth.

I urge the minister and his colleagues to support this resolution, which would right a wrong committed by the former Liberal government that unilaterally imposed restructuring on south Simcoe.

The member for Simcoe West has received hundreds of petitions and letters from former Tecumseth township residents who want to belong to the town of New Tecumseth. I have serious concerns that if the minister fails to support this resolution to right a wrong, it will be a prelude to similar difficulties with respect to the restructuring of north Simcoe municipalities.

Last November, the minister wrote to Simcoe county council and the cities of Orillia and Barrie to indicate he intended to proceed with restructuring in north Simcoe. The minister said he would meet all elected representatives in Simcoe county to discuss what he called a "fair and reasonable consultation process" on outstanding issues.

Among the outstanding issues the minister said would be covered by his "fair and reasonable consultation process" are the need for planning throughout the county that deals with area-wide issues and environmental, agricultural and development needs and, most important, the resolution of concerns expressed in municipal submissions and letters from the public.

Minister, I have serious doubts about your promise of a "fair and reasonable consultation process," especially when it comes to the elected representatives of the township of Tiny. It is my understanding that Tiny township officials have written to you numerous times since early March requesting a meeting to express and explain their concerns about the impact of a boundary change with the town of Midland.

I wish the parliamentary assistant to the minister would listen to this.

To date, you have either rejected the township's request for a meeting or failed to even acknowledge receipt of correspondence from elected representatives of the township of Tiny. Do you really call this a "fair and reasonable consultation process"? I don't, and I don't think the elected representatives or the people of Tiny township do either.

As I said earlier, Tiny township council has deep concerns about the impact of the boundary change with the town of Midland. The township would like to phase in the transfer of lands west of Highway 93 in order to provide time to evaluate how to manage without the assessment in other areas of the township.

It has been indicated to me that this assessment revenue in 1991 dollars will result in a decrease by $404,000 from a total commercial and industrial revenue of $1.9 million. That represents approximately 20% of the township's revenue that will have to be made up by reduced services or increased taxes or a combination of both.

Minister, I trust you will agree that the elected representatives of the township of Tiny have some important and very real concerns they want to discuss with you as part of your so-called "fair and reasonable consultation process."

Last week you announced that you had accepted the Simcoe county council's final decision on restructuring. You indicated that the county council's recommendations represent an acceptable solution to the issues in the county at this time.

According to the local press, you met with the mayors of Orillia and Barrie last week and told them to give your restructuring proposals a chance to settle in. You told the mayors you would look into their concerns about land they want in abutting townships "once the dust settles." Minister, you owe it to the elected representatives of Tiny township to meet with them to discuss their concerns before that dust settles.

1140

I have had the township of Tiny contact me. They've passed a resolution asking me to get a meeting with the minister, but I indicated that he should reply to their letters and indicate whether he will meet with them first, and if he doesn't, then I will intervene. This minister says he wants to be involved in the process. The township of Tiny has requested a meeting with the minister. He has not met with them and all indications are that he is not going to meet with them. Reeve Hastings of that municipality is very disturbed because of the AMO and Rural Ontario Municipal Association convention. The minister indicated how he wanted to consult with the municipalities. Well, if this is what consulting is doing, he's not doing his job very well.

The member for Simcoe West should be complimented on bringing this legislation forward. It was the previous member for Simcoe Centre who met, drew the line, and put this part of Tecumseth in with the Bradford West Gwillimbury municipality. It was wrong then and it's wrong today; it's still wrong.

I tell you, the reeves who have voted for restructuring in Simcoe county must have a great concern today when they see "Province Accepts Final Reform Package." This is the write-up that was in the paper, and it indicates that Cooke met with Mayor Clayton French and Janice Laking "to ask them to give country reform, as Cooke is now calling it, the opportunity to work" before we talk to you about how we're going to deal with your boundaries around the two cities. What he's saying is: "Let's get the county plan in place. Then you come to us and we will negotiate and we will deal with you on the basis of what we feel your presentations have been to date."

You can read between the lines what's happening here. Guess who does the planning for Simcoe county? They want a plan put on, and guess who's going to be involved in that plan for the county? The ministry and the two cities are going to be involved, and they're going to draw their boundary lines as they feel fit and the county will have very little say in what's going to happen.

I call this dictatorship, the way this county has done the county planning so far. It's the ministry staff that has led the way, and I tell you, these reeves around the two cities are going to have some second thoughts when it comes time to consider the planning for the county of Simcoe.

I want to just close by saying that this issue is new in the county of Simcoe for the last three years, and what is happening in south Simcoe is just exactly what is going to happen in the north.

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I guess I would like to enter into this debate as a person who lives in an area that was restructured some 20 years ago. I represent the area of Muskoka and we were restructured about 20 years ago and still suffer growing pains. As things have developed, even at this point there's a growing concern and a growing request coming forward from the local politicians and indeed from the residents of Muskoka that we go through a review of our restructuring, because restructuring is something that evolves. It isn't constant, and after 20 years there are things that we still need and still feel we should have.

I also represent the area of the northwest section of Simcoe county that is going through restructuring. I find that we're in a situation where there are winners and losers. I have one particular township in my riding, the township of Tay, that I feel is going to be a definite loser.

At the same time, I find myself in somewhat of a quandary, because I've always believed that the municipal option, keeping government at the local level and letting the local level make these decisions, is important, and that indeed the provincial government shouldn't interfere unless the decision by the local government is in direct conflict with the interests of the provincial government.

So I find myself in somewhat of a quandary, and I can sympathize with the honourable member for Simcoe West on this, because I could be here in another year or two with a resolution before the House trying to do a somewhat similar thing for the people of Tay. The boundary issues are always difficult. They've been a difficult thing, as I've said, from back when Muskoka was restructured, and they will continue to be something difficult for us to deal with.

When I look at the local option, the local option was the boundary as it exists. There were a number of letters and requests that came forward, and the minister indeed said, "Let's look at it again." The number of people who voiced their preference was so great that he said, "Let's look at it again." So the county of Simcoe made another local decision, and the decision was to not re-examine. The vote was 59 to 13, a substantial majority.

This is where I find myself in the difficult part. I find that the province should uphold the local decision. I would wish, though, that when the local politicians are working on these things they would sit down and think fairly and honestly about the little guy. For that small township out there, when you take any of its commercial base away from the tax base, indeed you are restricting the advantages throughout the rest of the county to that one group.

As we go through this debate I guess I'm going to have to sit and come up with my stand as to whether I will support the member opposite, and I will await his final rebuttal on this to make my decision. But there is still time before the final legislation is passed, and I would hope that the county of Simcoe sits down once again and comes to something, irons this out at the local level, so that we do not have to be seen as imposing our will on the county, where indeed I don't believe it is to start with. I think a vote of 59 to 13 is indeed a vast enough majority to indicate where the county wants to go, but it is a difficult thing to deal with and it isn't something that will go away tomorrow or the next day.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any members of the official opposition who wish to speak on this debate? There are six minutes left.

Mr Grandmaître: Yes.

The Deputy Speaker: You cannot speak a second time.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I was under the impression that our critic was indeed going to be given an opportunity for a wrapup, but we respect your ruling on this.

I was just talking to the mover of the motion and asking what the position of the local community is, or at least the representatives in that community, and I understand there was some, perhaps, gerrymandering of this boundary at some time in the past to solve some problems. He explains to me that you now have situations where someone will have his farmhouse on one side of the line and the septic tank on the other side of the line. It doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.

One of the previous speakers for the government said that he was going to oppose this because he didn't want to open up a Pandora's box. Once you start opening up municipal boundaries and making adjustments, it could spread and become a huge problem around the province. I turned to my colleague our critic for Municipal Affairs and said, "I guess the restructuring in Middlesex doesn't count."

We just recently saw the government make a major announcement in the Middlesex-London area restructuring, some of it going quite contrary to the wishes of some members in that local community. That decision probably represents, in my five years around here, the largest restructuring --

Interjection: A precedent.

1150

Mr Mahoney: As my colleague says, a precedent already established -- one of the largest restructurings. There were a lot of concerns being expressed by the local politicians in that community about the planning and about whether or not it was simply an effort to redistribute the wealth in that part of the province. I know it had concerns expressed by our newest member, the member for Brant-Haldimand, who is the associate critic for Municipal Affairs.

For that member opposite to say he's opposed to this because it's going to create a new precedent or open a new issue, I fail to understand that. In fact, this restructuring in 1990, this line that was drawn, clearly set a precedent in that community for restructuring, so I find that argument to be somewhat weak, frankly, and unfortunate.

I can understand the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, who expressed the conundrum that he finds himself in, I guess, in wanting to support the wishes of the local community and yet being afraid of again gerrymandering boundaries. But the reality is that the best government in this province is the government that's closest to the people. Having spent 10 years on a municipal council -- and currently my spouse is a municipal councillor -- I believe very much that the best government clearly is the government that's closest to the people. I believe the member for Simcoe West has done his homework on this resolution. He has had meetings with representatives in the community to discuss this and to make it a more commonsense boundary that people can understand, rather than having it go down through the middle of fields, ditches and the like.

Frankly, I think we should support this member in this attempt. This is just really another example of the difficulties we've seen in the community with this government and members of the cabinet refusing --

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Stop it.

Mr Mahoney: George, it's true -- refusing to meet with people on issues of concern in the local community.

You don't solve problems by sticking your head in the sand. You don't solve difficulties by refusing to talk to the people who are concerned. We would ask you to come out of the closet, come out of the cabinet rooms and talk to the real people.

We recently saw, just yesterday, that finally, after a year and a half of bashing this government over the head, it came around to the realization that the community wants Sunday shopping, so it finally made a decision. It's just so unfortunate that decision came after thousands of businesses have gone broke, people have lost their jobs and the economy has been reeling in disarray.

I would hope the Minister of Municipal Affairs would not wait for ever, would not just simply stick his head in the sand and refuse to meet -- one of the honourable members opposite has suggested that he has yet to meet with the mayors and the local politicians.

Learn one thing: It's those people who are closest to the people, who understand what's going on in their communities; it's none of you here and it's really none of us here who understand the real optics of what is going on in that community. It seems to me that something like this should almost be apolitical and non-partisan. When a member comes forward and puts an issue forward, as he has, then we --

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Are you non-partisan?

Mr Mahoney: In this issue I am. I'm supporting this local member because he's done his homework and he understands the significance and the impact in his community. As a result, I'd be delighted to support this member in his resolution.

The Deputy Speaker: There's a minute and 20 seconds left for the government side if it wishes to use it. The member for Cochrane South.

Mr Bisson: I just want to say a couple of things, basically, in response to what was said on the question of the municipal government being closer to the people. I agree with what the member opposite has just said. I would disagree somewhat with the tone of the statements the member made in regard to the government's decision on Sunday shopping or whatever. If we listened to what people are saying in our communities about politicians of all stripes --

The Deputy Speaker: Please speak to the issue.

Mr Bisson: Very good. Seeing I'm not allowed to speak on the member's particular comment, I will sit down and give up the floor.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Simcoe East, you have approximately three minutes left at your disposal.

Mr Jim Wilson: It's Simcoe West, Mr Speaker, but thank you very much. I do want to thank my Liberal colleagues the members for Ottawa East and Mississauga West for their thoughtful comments and support, and also my caucus colleagues the members for Wellington and Simcoe East. I thought a number of points raised on this side of the House were very commonsense and very much appreciated by myself and my constituents.

Because of time constraints today we're unable to really express all the arguments in support of my resolution. However, last November a delegation from the town of New Tecumseth supported by myself did meet with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Dave Cooke. I know the minister is well aware of the issues involved. Having heard the arguments, I would ask that all members support this resolution. It really is a commonsense resolution that isn't scary and doesn't do a number of things the NDP members think it does.

I think best summarizing the points I want to make and countering some of the points made by the government is the following editorial that appeared in the Herald, a weekly publication out of the town of New Tecumseth. The title of the editorial, by Catherine Haller, dated May 27, is "Responsibility." It reads:

"If there's anything to be learned about the amalgamation of south Simcoe, it is surely that this is not the way to change municipal boundaries. From the very start of the process started almost three years ago the approach was heavy-handed, undemocratic and destined to make people feel disenfranchised. The boundary between New Tecumseth and Bradford West Gwillimbury makes no sense and never did. To place an arbitrary line between two lots when the natural boundary was a highway is to display a flagrant ignorance of rural life. What's at fault with amalgamation isn't just the boundaries; it's the process, a process which denied people input."

It goes on to say: "Change is never easy and amalgamation is proving more difficult and painful than anyone imagined. The county has washed its hands of the debate. The province, which set up the whole mess in the first place, has also turned its back on the issue, leaving it up to citizens to try and correct something they had nothing to do with causing.

"Amalgamation was and is a valid principle, but it should be done correctly. The Minister of Municipal Affairs cannot walk away from this. He must respond to the pleas of the people and the insistence of Simcoe West MPP Jim Wilson and immediately investigate these boundaries. Without provincial action each community will have to lobby, petition and fight for changes. Each municipality will have to devote time and money to boundary negotiations.

"The main reason cited by the provincial government in the first place for amalgamation was that there were too many requests for annexations, and the way to resolve it was to redraw the map. Well, they redrew the map -- incorrectly.

"We call on the Minister of Municipal Affairs to launch an immediate investigation at the province's expense into the boundaries and to deal with the issue fairly, democratically and decently. To walk away from it is cowardly and an abrogation of responsibility. To say it was the Liberals who started this is no excuse. It was the provincial government which took the initiative and imposed amalgamation. It's up to the provincial government to listen to the people and make the necessary sensible and fair adjustments."

I really couldn't have summarized it better myself, and I ask for all members' support of this important resolution.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

HUMAN TISSUE GIFT AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LE DON DE TISSUS HUMAINS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item 11, standing in the name of Mr Henderson. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

1205

The House divided on Mr Henderson's motion for second reading of Bill 19, An Act to amend the Human Tissue Gift Act, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes -- 19

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Cordiano, Cunningham, Grandmaître, Henderson, Jordan, Mahoney, McLean, Miclash, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Runciman, Turnbull, Villeneuve, White, Wilson (Simcoe West).

Nays -- 28

Bisson, Carter, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Elston, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Hope, Huget, Johnson, Klopp, Lessard, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martin, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Waters, Wessenger, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

The House divided on Mr Wilson's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes -- 18

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Cordiano, Cunningham, Elston, Grandmaître, Henderson, Jordan, Mahoney, McLean, Miclash, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Runciman, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West).

Nays -- 29

Bisson, Carter, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Hope, Huget, Johnson, Klopp, Lessard, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martin, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Poole, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman.

The Deputy Speaker: All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30.

The House recessed at 1210.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I rise today at the request of a constituent, but also in honour and memory of her late husband, to speak about amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, known, I guess, as Lou Gehrig's disease.

As you're aware, Mr Speaker, this is ALS Week. I can remember, as a young boy, watching the Lou Gehrig story -- I'm sure many people have seen it repeated on television -- and seeing a tremendous person being devastated by a disease that simply took his life. This is the fate of many people who suffer from ALS.

In fact, six to seven people out of 100,000 are afflicted by this disease. It is a death penalty to these people. More research must be done. In fact, if 5% of Canadians were to contribute one loonie to the ASL Foundation, there would be sufficient funds there to carry out research so that one day we will be able to find a cure for this terrible disease.

I wear a blue flower, a cornflower, which is a symbol of ALS. This weekend, on the 5th and 6th, will in fact be Cornflower Day. I urge all Canadians, all Ontarians and certainly all the people in my riding to consider contributing a loonie to eliminate this disease and make certain that people such as my constituent Donald Glen and also a very famous baseball player, Lou Gehrig, will be able to rest in peace knowing this disease has been conquered.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): The month of June is dedicated to the recognition and acknowledgement of the many significant contributions to our society by senior citizens. Later today, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor will preside at a seniors' achievement awards ceremony. I am very proud that Hugh Lamb of Burlington, who serves on my seniors' advisory committee, will be among those so honoured.

June is also report card month, and like students who are afraid to face their parents with poor grades, the part-time NDP minister responsible for seniors' issues has strangely been silent about seniors throughout the previous year. No wonder. The NDP has drastically cut drugs from the Ontario drug benefit plan used by seniors, the Ontario tax grant for seniors was cut from $600 to $450 for its transitional phase and the new credit program will cut $100 million away from seniors at the same time as the NDP spends $15.2 million on bilingual highway signs.

Also in the NDP budget, cuts were announced for homes for the aged in the amount of $27 million, and recently the Health ministry changed the residency requirement for OHIP benefits without advising seniors. The auto insurance income replacement benefits for long-term disabled individuals run to age 65 and are then reduced. We are still awaiting changes to long-term care reform and the recommendations from the Lightman commission.

The NDP will some day learn the lesson of history, which is that the measure of society's level of civilization is the extent to which it values and cares for its frail and elderly senior citizens.

FIRE SAFETY HOUSE

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Today I want to bring to the attention of the Legislature the town of Newcastle's firefighters and their ingenuity in creating a mobile miniature fire safety house.

This fire house is on display at Courtice Carnival in Courtice this Saturday, but first of all I want to mention all the hours of work put into the construction of this fire safety house by off-duty full-time and part-time firefighters.

The fire safety house has been named Danelle after the only daughter of Newcastle firefighter Owen Ferguson and his wife Connie, who lost their daughter after only two weeks of life.

The role of the fire safety house is in the education of children on fire prevention and safety. The house is a 21 by 13.5 by 8 foot scaled-down, two-storey house. This mobile home travels around the schools to teach children, in a most realistic way, fire prevention safety. The reactions from students, teachers and school boards have been tremendous.

The firefighters of the town of Newcastle are to be commended not only for the contribution of their time and their own hours in building the safety house, but for their dedication to educating children in fire safety and fire prevention, thereby undoubtedly saving future lives.

NATIONAL ACCESS AWARENESS DAY

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): Yesterday I had the privilege of attending National Access Awareness Day in Campbellford. This is the third year for the local group More Able Than Disabled to provide a day when the town residents can learn and experience the difficulties encountered daily by the people who are challenged in some way.

The success of this event is unquestionably due to the commitment, enthusiasm and hard work of the resident physiotherapist, Doreen Sharpe. Doreen and her helpers organized four groups, each assigned a disability, to go out into the community to shop and to access various buildings. Twenty-five grade 10 students from Linda Thompson's class at the Campbellford high school also spent some time trying to access facilities as physically challenged persons. Afterwards, everyone comes back and reports on their experiences and, more important, their feelings. Over the three years, this has resulted in many physical changes as well as attitudinal changes taking place around the town.

The grades 7 and 8 students at Hillcrest Public School had the chance to see and participate in recreational activities such as wheelchair basketball. As well, many booths were set up at the ARC Industries facility for people to access information and try out technical aids. Not only this week but every day of our lives we must strive to break down the barriers facing the disabled community.

I was pleased to attend the community action awards presented by the minister here at Queen's Park. Although the minister did not make a formal statement in the House, I am sure she would join with me in congratulating Doreen Sharpe and the Campbellford More Able Than Disabled group, who are making us all more aware that creating access for people with disabilities is everyone's responsibility.

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): Last week I had the pleasure of attending ceremonies at Co-op and Sunoco gas stations in Grey that are now offering ethanol as an environmentally friendly alternative to traditional fuel. Stations in Markdale, Thornbury, Durham, Hanover and two in Owen Sound now provide fuel with up to 10% ethanol by volume, priced to compete with the premium gasolines. This is the first time that gasolines blended with ethanol have been made widely available in Ontario, and I urge the government to aid in their production and demand.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture and commodity groups will do what they can, because increased use of this fuel will only help the agricultural community. Ethanol blends benefit the environment as well, because they reduce carbon monoxide emissions by up to 30% and reduce ozone-forming gases, which cause breathing problems in humans and which damage plants.

Fuel ethanol can be produced from surplus and substandard grain crops and provides a further benefit in that the byproduct of the manufacturing process is a valuable high-protein animal feed. Because it is produced from crops, ethanol is a home-grown, renewable fuel which replaces imported, potentially cancer-causing chemicals in unleaded gas.

Members will therefore understand why I am proud that gas stations in Grey are active participants in this venture. It is my hope that more producers will offer this blend and that its use will become even more widespread.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I often see my parliamentary colleagues in the legislative library browsing the New York Times, checking out the latest on uncontrollable deficits, racial tensions, urban decay and the economic stagnation at the state and federal levels in the United States. Without being smug, we can see the benefits of our progressive national and provincial approaches.

The most popular program and the one which best demonstrates the economic and social benefits of our philosophy is medicare. You can go anywhere in this province, from University Avenue to remote northern areas, to see people obtaining a broad range of essential services undeterred by cost and bureaucratic constraints, at considerably less societal cost and without the terrible risks of being uninsured.

I am sure that you and other members, Mr Speaker, must have been amazed by an editorial in the New York Times last week entitled "Canada's No Medical Model." It is full of inaccuracies about both the Canadian and American systems. It claims, for instance, that our system saves money by restricting quick access to care. The reality is that millions of Americans find access to any care restricted by the possibility of financial insolvency.

It was my privilege last week to welcome to this House Dr David Himmelstein of the 5,000-strong Physicians for a National Health Program, who does see our single-payer system as the model for the reform they so urgently require.

The New York Times is the only publication I know of that has spawned a publication called Lies of Our Times, which addresses its systemic biases. No doubt this editorial will be further pulled apart in its columns by Americans who expect truth in media.

1340

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): According to local news reports, the St Catharines General Hospital, after eight years of planning and after approval to go to tender in December 1991, has been stopped in its tracks in its effort to provide much-needed expansion and improvement to its emergency care department.

The disappointment of medical staff and patients is obvious, as everyone had anticipated a genuine opportunity to improve medical services in our community. Instead it appears that the heavy hand of the Ministry of Health will unnecessarily delay this essential development by imposing conditions not required elsewhere in the province.

I call upon the Minister of Health to give the green light to this urgently required health care facility. In addition to this, I call upon the Minister of Health to approve the funding for the haemodialysis unit at St Catharines Hotel Dieu Hospital, where patients and dedicated staff face crowded conditions.

There are unsafe working conditions. There is a fire hazard. There is a cardiac arrest problem if someone in the unit has one. Someone has described going down a hallway that is only 58 feet long. In her wheelchair, she should be able to go the entire length of the hall in less than a minute. However, it took her 15 minutes to go the length of the hall and 20 minutes to come back up the hall. The reason is obvious: It's too crowded and the conditions are deplorable. I call upon the minister to give approval immediately to the improvement of that unit.

TEACHERS' CONTRACTS

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the London Board of Education and its secondary school teachers who voted last Wednesday to ratify a 1% salary increase for the 1992-93 school year contract.

Given the recent transfer payments and the current economic conditions, the teachers have shown responsible leadership and demonstrated their professionalism in accepting such a contract which is good for ratepayers, students, teachers and the school board. Even though the increase on salary rates is 1%, the real cost of the package to ratepayers is 2.4%, still beyond the transfer payment rate of 1%.

The Minister of Education has forced many school boards to cut programs and lay off teachers because he continues to mandate such programs as junior kindergarten, destreaming and integration without providing 100% funding. I have asked the minister on numerous occasions to place a moratorium on provincially mandated programs unless the minister is willing to provide 100% funding.

Although the London board is the only board to have settled the 1992-93 contract with the secondary teachers, Nipigon-Red Rock elementary teachers and Halton elementary teachers recently accepted 1% settlements. These agreements are very gratifying to all parties involved and I encourage other teachers in the province entering negotiations to consider this precedent set by these teachers in London and elsewhere.

PEOPLE IN MOTION

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): I rise in the House today to inform all members of a very important event. The third annual People in Motion show will be taking place June 5 and 6 at the Queen Elizabeth Building, Exhibition Place, in Toronto.

As part of National Access Awareness Week, which runs from June 1 to June 7, People in Motion is in the forefront, highlighting services, technology and job opportunities for disabled persons. People in Motion is the largest exhibition of its kind in Canada. It offers a wide range of products and transportation options for the disabled community in the province of Ontario.

For the past three years, the Ministry of Transportation has been a major cosponsor of People in Motion, along with supporting sponsors like Volkswagen Canada in 1990 and the Ministry of Health in 1991. Since 1990, People in Motion has grown to more than 150 exhibitors and attendance is expected to grow to at least 10,000 for two days.

This year the Ministry of Transportation is proud to again be the sponsor of People in Motion, along with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology. The opening ceremony will take place tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock. I hope all members will take the time to visit People in Motion and participate in National Access Awareness Week.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On May 28 last, the House leader for the official opposition (Mr Elston) rose on a point of order, pointing out that Speakers had been lenient in applying the rules governing responses to statements by ministers since the standing order changes in 1986. I must agree with the honourable member that this is indeed the case, as he so skilfully demonstrated to me last week. However, that does not change the basic rule that members are recognized in that period of time set aside to reply to the statements that have been made by ministers that day, even though in some cases, because of the skilful quality of members' replies, the Speaker is not always as quick as he might be in bringing the member to order. In other words, we are governed here by our own rules and what the honourable member for Bruce has pointed out is that it does happen that members sometimes are successful in circumventing those rules without bringing harm to anyone.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This has nothing to do with your current ruling, sir, but it does have to do with the conduct of business here in the House.

We have on a regular basis, as you know, met as House leaders to put together the list of materials we will be considering for the upcoming week. Yesterday we met to deal with the issue of business to be prosecuted over the next week or so and received a list of the intended prosecutions by this government.

Unfortunately, nothing was mentioned by the House leader of the government party about scheduling the Sunday shopping legislation for next week and for a vote on Thursday, as has been reported in the newspapers, and we felt -- when I say "we," I've had some contact from the House leader of the third party -- it is at least unusual to ask us as House leaders to prepare our members to speak to the scheduled legislation that was put before us yesterday, and to prepare and ready ourselves to conduct our business, without reflecting any interest in voting on Sunday shopping and then going to the media and saying there would be both debate and voting on Sunday shopping next Thursday.

My complaint is not that we wish not to prosecute the legislation that was introduced just yesterday; it is that the member for Windsor-Riverside, in trying to be helpful to us as we prepare our members for their debates, did not lead us to advise our members that there would be time taken next week for debating the Sunday shopping legislation. I have to indicate that as a result of that, we are not, I think, able to see how we're going to conduct all the business that was given to us yesterday in our meeting, plus the Sunday shopping legislation, without the government preventing us from fully carrying out our mandate as members.

I raise it not so much as -- well, actually it's raised a little bit as a complaint, because we are preparing in our role as opposition critics and otherwise to do the business that was listed, and we thought, sir, that we were going to be dealing with Sunday shopping at some point down the road. Now it is interjected through the media as being voted on next Thursday. I feel I have misled my caucus colleagues by indicating that the list of business was as I had laid it out on a piece of paper I gave to them in an informal meeting yesterday.

Mr Speaker, I ask for your advice to me, having just returned from the meeting with the government House leader yesterday morning, as to how we can prosecute our business if they are unprepared to tell us what direction they as a government are going to take in this House.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): I will review the minutes from yesterday, but I think the House leader for the official opposition would agree that I did raise the issue of Sunday shopping in the meeting and I did indicate --

Mr Elston: We added it. It wasn't even on your list, David. We put it on there.

Hon Mr Cooke: Can I just complete my comments? I don't have the list in front of me, but I think I listed four or five pieces of legislation -- Bills 118, 123, 165 and a few others -- and indicated that Sunday shopping would follow those pieces of legislation, and we have two days next week that are opposition days. I did indicate that. I'll take a look at the minutes, and if the minutes don't properly reflect the discussions we had yesterday, they will be corrected.

1350

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the House leader of the official opposition and the government House leader, I appreciate very much the concern you've brought to my attention. You place the Speaker at a distinct disadvantage in that you are asking me to consider something which at this point is hypothetical. It is the practice in this House to announce the business for the coming week at the end of Thursday's business. We have not yet reached that point of the agenda.

Mr Elston: It's been given to us.

The Speaker: The Speaker is aware only of things which are dealt with in the House.

I understand full well the member's point and indeed, over the course of the afternoon, I will attempt to provide some guidance with respect to this event should it occur at the end of the day.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): Mr Speaker, the government in its throne speech almost 20 months ago stated its intention to bring positive reform and renewal to the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

I want to say I am proud to stand in the chamber today and announce that I will be introducing this afternoon the culmination of months of work. There has been considerable consultation, redrafting and modification. The resulting new Labour Relations Act for the people of Ontario is legislation that is based on justice, fairness and jobs for Ontario.

We told the people of Ontario that we would consult on this legislation and consult we did. We have talked to over 300 groups, representing business, labour, organized workers, unorganized workers, women, immigrants, chambers of commerce, community groups and virtually every sector of our economy.

We talked with thousands of people and they told us frankly what they thought of the proposed legislation. We have responded by making over 20 changes to reflect those concerns. Ten of those changes are significant and four relate specifically to the issue of replacement workers.

The result, as you will see this afternoon, is a piece of legislation that will bring about better workplaces, better for people who work in them, better for the employers through streamlined procedures and better for the province as a whole, because it recognizes the fundamental changes our economy is going through in the 1990s.

When looking at this legislation in the days and weeks ahead, it is important to keep in mind that Ontario's workplaces are changing.

Today, 61% of all women in Ontario work outside the home. There are hundreds of thousands of new immigrant workers and the number of part-time workers in our economy has almost doubled since the act was last significantly updated 15 years ago.

The province's economy is undergoing fundamental structural changes. It is experiencing a dramatic shift from an industrial to a service- and information-based economy, and there are strategic alliances forming through employee participation in management that are changing the very nature of the relationship between the business community and employees.

These new economic realities are reflected in these changes. Now more than ever, business and workers must work together to become more competitive in the global economy. Now more than ever, we need a new alliance that not only sees the bottom line as important but also the dignity and values that workers bring to a finished product or to a balance sheet.

I want to make it clear that meaningful worker participation is fundamental to Ontario's economic growth. Through that participation, we will see increased competitiveness and productivity. Ontario has an educated, skilled and motivated workforce that we can all be proud of. We aim to make that workforce even more efficient and effective.

Let me describe the essence of this legislation in a few concise phrases: (1) This act is aimed at responding to the new workplaces and changing workforces of this decade. (2) The legislation reflects this government's confidence in working people and their contribution to economic renewal. (3) We are aiming to reduce conflict by reducing confrontation on picket lines and hostilities that can sometimes linger for years. (4) We are streamlining the process in order to alleviate costly delays and assist the collective bargaining process, which can become cumbersome and time-consuming.

Our goal is to promote more dialogue, discussion and problem-solving between workers and employers.

This will put Ontario on the cutting edge of cooperation and innovation when the proposed legislation becomes law. On that point I say to the people of Ontario that we are taking labour relations out of the 1970s and into the 1990s in this province.

The legislation governs the relationship between unionized workers and employers in most of the private and part of the public sector. It sets out the rules under which employees can form unions, prohibits unfair practices by both unions and employers, establishes the rules for bargaining contracts and creates procedures for handling disagreements between unions and employers.

But even more important, it sets the tone for employer-employee relationships throughout every sector in Ontario. It plots a course for a more open workplace, one which is more responsive and democratic.

I ask those of you who have been vocal in your opposition to this forthcoming legislation to assess it with an open mind. There is a genuine need to accept that change is necessary and inevitable and that change, although at times disconcerting, is more often than not a good thing. The new legislation is a good thing for Ontario and I am confident that over time that will be proven.

We have tackled some difficult issues with this legislation, issues that needed to be addressed. But we have done so with the knowledge that resolving the current inequities in the system will make labour disputes less confrontational.

I refer to the use of replacement workers during strikes and lockouts. Ministry and independent research has shown that the use of replacement workers prolongs disputes and creates an environment of confrontation that lasts long after a settlement has been reached. We have tackled the issue with balance in mind.

We will be introducing another bill this month with respect to the relationship between construction unions operating in Ontario and their internationally based parent unions. Construction unions in Ontario have expressed a desire for greater control of their own affairs. We are prepared to help fulfil that desire through amendments to come shortly.

As well, last January the government established a task force to deal with the concerns of the agricultural community with respect to the current exclusion of agricultural workers from the Labour Relations Act. This group represented all sectors of the agricultural industry, unions and government. The task force report will be released shortly. I am pleased with the cooperation that those involved have demonstrated. Changes relating to agricultural workers will reflect the task force report. We will continue to work with them.

The people of Ontario have long expressed their desire for business, labour and government to work towards a new era of prosperity and cooperation, and that is the spirit of this new legislation.

It is not a matter of choosing between jobs or justice. It's all about having both, having the justice of fair, balanced labour legislation that brings greater dialogue to the workplace, and in so doing making Ontario economically stronger.

The new Ontario Labour Relations Act has at its heart jobs and justice for all of Ontario. I look forward to a new era in employee-employer relationships and continuing the process of building Ontario's economy through its strongest resource, its people.

1400

RESPONSES

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): The legislation that is to be introduced today will not create one new job in this province. It will not put one unemployed person back to work. It will not stimulate one new investment in Ontario.

Yesterday the Premier said we cannot put walls around Ontario. Today, sadly, the walls have gone up. Our response to the introduction of this legislation is one single, compelling question: Why now? Why are we going to spend the next weeks and months debating this legislation, the government's number one priority, while the economy of this province continues to crumble around us?

We keep reminding the Premier and his government of just how difficult our economic situation is: The 558,000 people in this province who are without jobs, the 18% unemployment rate among our young people, the fact that we are experiencing plant closures at the rate of one every three days, the fact that in the months of March and April more than 1,000 Ontarians a day lost their jobs. How bad does it have to get before this government realizes that it can't keep marching ahead with its old ideas and its old agenda?

This government did say at one point that it understood how difficult our economic situation is. In the speech from the throne, in fact, the government said, "Economic renewal must be our number one priority." It even went on to say that the basis of a sound economy is a flourishing business sector, but quite clearly it's labour legislation that has always been the government's number one priority, and we see the proof of that today. The words in the throne speech obviously meant nothing. Yet we wonder, if this was so fundamental to this government's plans, why there was not even a mention of it in its election platform in the Agenda for People.

This government has constantly painted anyone who voiced any concerns about proposed reforms to the Labour Relations Act as being anti-worker and anti-union. That is just simply not the case. You have to wonder how defensible the government's position is when it won't tolerate even the expression of legitimate concern. Our concern has always been and will always be the disastrous economic situation the province faces and the price real people are paying for the economic situation we're in right now.

The government seems to believe this is a short-term recession, that it's going to end soon and the world will go on as it did before. The reality is that it's not just a short-term recession. We're experiencing some very fundamental changes in our economy, and it's not good enough to just hold your breath and hope at the end it's going to be over.

We need action that responds to the immediate, urgent crisis of the day. We do not need legislation that is simply going to polarize labour and management at a time when we need cooperation more than ever before. We need legislation that is going to deal with the kinds of concerns people have and not put more people out of work. We need to have action that is going to make sure we keep people working and put unemployed people back to work again.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): To carry on with the response as indicated by my leader, there is no question that the announcement made by the Minister of Labour today does not create one job. It does not create any hope, any optimism for the many people in this province who are looking for those particular aspects.

This legislation is a continuation of what this government has embarked upon for the last year and a half. They have stage-managed a consultation process which has without doubt excluded hundreds if not thousands of people who want to share their thoughts, their concerns, their suggestions with the minister. The minister and the ministry and the stage-managed approach that this government has taken have excluded, have in fact locked the doors on, the concerns, the suggestions and the opinions of many thousands of Ontarians, Ontario workers and people who are looking for some optimism in this province.

We are going to be looking very closely at this particular legislation. We are going to be taking a look at what, for instance, the provisions mean with respect to replacement workers. How do they benefit workers, for instance, in our automotive industry where, according to these suggestions, if one of the 3,000 suppliers goes on strike you effectively shut down the automotive industry in this province? We ask, what does that do for the workers of this province? We're going to be looking at those and other provisions and we will be suggesting changes for improvement.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): The number one priority for people in our province is job creation, not labour law reform. We know governments cannot wave a magic wand to create new jobs, but governments can create an economic climate of confidence to stimulate job creation.

These reforms do nothing to restore consumer, investor or business confidence, and they will not create one new job. These reforms will not contribute to economic prosperity in this province. For every one step forward that this government takes, it appears that actions such as this take us three steps back. These reforms will destroy the delicate balance between business and labour. They will lead to further polarization.

Minister, you talked about consultation, you talked about listening, but there was no meaningful consultation. Everyone was forced to listen and respond to the union-driven agenda. What you've done here is only modify your union-driven agenda.

During the past year this government has constantly mismanaged this entire issue. You have never been able to demonstrate that there was a need for the radical overhaul of the Ontario Labour Relations Act. You have never done an economic impact study.

These proposals are going to be the most comprehensive labour legislation in North America. This government is out of step. You are raising tremendous barriers around Ontario which are going to discourage investment and prevent new job creation in this province.

You have not made changes today; you have only tinkered with your own union-driven agenda, but the net result is the same. It's going to cost workers jobs, it's going to delay the creation of new jobs, and you've forgotten that the most important right of a worker in this province is the right to a job.

People of this province are desperate for a plan for economic renewal. They do not want an agenda for union power. What this legislation does is shift the balance of power. This is obvious when we take a look at the role of the Ontario Labour Relations Board. It has been altered from an impartial referee to an advocate for unions. We don't have this in place in other jurisdictions.

Also, if we take a look at the replacement worker provision, this will still effectively give unions the power to shut down a plant during a labour dispute and can close the plant down if they can't fulfil their contractual obligations.

You've eliminated petitions but there is still no opportunity for the individual to participate in a secret ballot. You have increased the rights and powers for unions without giving them any accompanying responsibility.

The only good news today is that instead of drowning under 12 feet of water in this province we're only going to drown under 10 feet.

1410

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Let's make this clear: This is nothing but a cynical payback to the big union bosses who supported the NDP during the last election. All this will do is increase the powers of unions. It will not fill the empty factories. It won't create one job. What it will do is put the bureaucrats in charge of the workplace, raise the cost of doing business, restrict individual rights and cost the people of Ontario jobs.

Don't get too comfortable over there, because I want to tell you very clearly: Stay alive till 1995 because we're going to rip these provisions out when we come back to power in Ontario. Don't get too comfortable, because they're coming out in 1995. Stay alive till 1995. This is nothing but a payback to the big unions. The fight is on. Every business in this province is going to fight these union bosses on this thing. This is nothing but Bob White's agenda. I say to the people out there today: We are going to fight this.

The workers are behind us: 83% of the people, including the unionized workers, say this is a bad piece of legislation. We're going to work to make sure it gets scrapped, and when we're elected in 1995 we're going to pull every last one of these provisions right out.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. You'll all be pleased to know that it is time for oral questions.

MINISTERIAL INFORMATION

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point or order, Mr Speaker: I would like to bring to your attention that today a major announcement was made by the Minister of the Environment on --

Interjection: That's not a point of order.

Mr Stockwell: It is so.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Every member in this House has the opportunity to raise a point of order if he or she believes there is a point of order, and I will listen to each member who does that.

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Colleges and Universities and Minister of Skills Development): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Perhaps it would be in order if you were to request members who stand on points of order to initially indicate the order point they are making in the rules so that you will know what they're referring to.

The Speaker: To the Minister of Colleges and Universities: All members may recall that on an earlier occasion I had requested that members, if they believed they had either a point of order or a point of privilege, try to succinctly place their point of order or privilege immediately upon gaining the recognition of the Speaker. I will now ask the member for Etobicoke West to state his point of order.

Mr Stockwell: My privileges as a member have been breached because today the Minister of the Environment announced 57 long-term dump sites --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Durham West is asked to come to order. The member for Etobicoke West will please address his point of order to the Speaker.

Mr Stockwell: I would like to be very clear. I think this is a clear breach of my privileges, Mr Speaker. Today it was announced there would be 57 long-term dump sites in and around the greater Toronto area. This minister has made the sites available. She has issued press releases. She has sent it to interested parties. In fact I didn't even get this until just before I came in here at 1:30 today. Mr Speaker, this was not announced in the House. This is a very important notice.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat? The member should know there is nothing in the standing orders which compels a minister of the crown to make statements in the House. There is a period of time set aside during routine proceedings where ministers may, if they wish, announce government policy. They are not obliged to do it in the House, although they are encouraged both by this Speaker and by previous Speakers to take that route.

It is time for oral questions, and the Leader of the Opposition.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier, and I would like to come back to our one central question, and that is, why now? I know the Premier does realize just how desperate our economic situation is, and surely he realizes that this legislation being introduced today is not going to create any new jobs, that it's not going to put any unemployed people back to work and that in fact it's going to discourage the investment that would hopefully create some new jobs in this province.

I would ask the Premier to tell this House why, as the economy truly does crumble around us, he has decided to bring in this bill now rather than address the very urgent needs that this province faces?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The member asked the same question basically that she's asked on other occasions, and it's based on the premise which is the historic premise that seems now to be the battle cry of a party which 102 years ago, as I pointed out yesterday, was prepared to accept the fact that workers had rights, that those are important, and that those rights don't stand in the way of progress, don't stand in the way of jobs and don't stand in the way of employment.

We reject entirely the notion that what we are doing in terms of allowing people the right to organize in any way discourages investment, in any way discourages people from putting their money into this province and creating more jobs. The Leader of the Opposition takes the same line that Liberals in opposition have traditionally taken, that whenever they're not in government the sky is falling and the world is falling apart.

We've come through a serious recession; we all know that. We also know that several major companies: Ford, Chrysler, A. O. Smith, Kelsey's Restaurants, KeepRite, Eaton Yale, SHL Systemhouse, Nabisco Brands, Gates Canada and Xerox Canada have all in recent months made substantial investments in this province. We know those investments are going to produce more jobs. We know there's evidence all over the place that investment is coming to this province and that it is coming from those very companies that even now have a highly unionized workforce and others don't.

I would only say to the honourable member, why now? Because there's no better time than the present to create a stronger climate for labour relations, no better time than the present to create a stronger sense of the need for balance between workers and employers and the need to create a true partnership in the workplace of Ontario in the 1990s. That's why.

Mrs McLeod: The Premier surely has not been talking to the 558,000 people who are unemployed or the 18% of the young people in this province who won't have jobs this summer. They will tell the Premier, if he is talking to them, that indeed, Premier, for them the sky is falling. How can you talk about coming through a recession when we're seeing those kinds of unemployment numbers?

We continue to ask questions that the Premier and his government refused to answer until they had tabled their legislation so we will keep coming back and asking the questions. We still do not understand what the problem was that was so urgent that it necessitated this legislation being the number one priority, rather than dealing with the concerns of the unemployed people of this province. As we understand it, in 1991 there were only 95 work stoppages in Ontario and 95% of business-labour negotiations were settled without a strike.

Mr Speaker, I would ask the Premier, what is the pressing problem that this Premier sees as the reason for making this legislation his number one priority?

1420

Hon Mr Rae: This legislation is obviously of importance to the government, but I would say to the member that the number one priority of this government remains the creation of a positive climate that will allow the economy to grow, the government to work more efficiently and business, labour and government to work more cooperatively now than ever before.

When the member stands in her place and says that 95% of labour negotiations were settled without a strike, she herself is then admitting that the replacement worker provisions, for example, are frankly -- I would say this to the honourable member: She knows this full well and I suspect there are many members of her caucus who would agree with this privately as well, if not publicly, this is no huge, big deal. It's simply a modest change intended to create a sense of balance and to remedy those situations when there are disputes which could be resolved differently than they're now being resolved.

The Labour Relations Act has not been reformed for 15 years. We're heading into an economy in which cooperation and partnership are going to be the order of the day, in which we want to make sure both partners feel secure in their ability to be able to talk to one another and don't feel that their right to be there is constantly being questioned and being attacked and undermined as is implied in some of the actions being taken. That's why now and that's why the government is taking the direction it is.

Mrs McLeod: The Premier says this is not their only priority, that they are concerned about the economy. It seems to reflect back to those very fine words in the throne speech in which they said in such ringing tones that economic renewal would have to be their number one priority. From our side of the House we don't see any action that matches those words. All we see is the introduction of labour legislation on which this House and this province is going to spend the next weeks and months of its energy and attention.

I wonder if the Premier does not understand that this legislation is going to involve business, labour and government, the groups that need to be cooperating, in a protracted warfare over the proposals they're presenting today. Does he not understand that he should be bringing in the kinds of proposals that would encourage labour, business and government to be working together to make economic renewal their number one priority as it should be for this government?

Hon Mr Rae: I disagree with the member and say that's exactly what we're doing. Perhaps I could respond to her question with a simple reply. If she's saying this is not the right moment to bring in the legislation, perhaps I could ask her, is she telling us that the Liberal Party which was in office for five years -- years in which there was growth in the economy, we all recognize that -- is she saying that was the time to do it or is she saying five years from now will be the time to do it?

If she's opposed to the legislation, let her at least come out and say which of the specific provisions she objects to rather than saying that somehow this doesn't happen to be the right moment. There is never a right moment for the Liberal Party to make progressive change unless their feet are held to the fire as they were between 1985 and 1987 and between 1963 and 1968 in Ottawa. Those are the only moments that the Liberal Party has found it. We decided to take this action and you will never be there to do it because we're here to do it right now.

Mrs McLeod: The Premier keeps talking about the right time, yet even as he talks about the right time he keeps taking us back -- back to 1985, back 102 years ago in time. I want to talk about the right time for this legislation today.

Quite frankly, I don't think the 30 people who were laid off at Babcock and Wilcox in Cambridge, one of the companies that was heralded in the same throne speech in which the government said economic renewal was going to be its number one priority, will actually think these reforms are a good way to bring back their jobs. I don't think the 250 people down the road in Brantford, who were told last Friday that they too would be out of work, would be too enthusiastic about the government's initiatives either.

It is reality that plants like these are closing at the rate of one every three days. I would just ask the Premier again: With 557,000 people unemployed in this province, how will these proposals help put these people back to work? How will they help to ensure there aren't more plant closures and more people being laid off?

Hon Mr Rae: If the member is now buying into the line, if she's saying now that she's simply buying the line of the billboards and becoming a kind of kinder and gentler billboard in this Legislature in terms of what she's trying to say on behalf of the National Citizens' Coalition, let me say to the honourable member very directly in reply that there may well be situations when by improving the bargaining relationship between employers and employees we can in fact ensure that employees are better protected when it comes to layoffs, that they're better protected when it comes to closures. There will be plant closures and there will be plant openings. We are looking forward to more plant openings this year, just as we faced a very tough year of plant closures last year.

I would say to the honourable member that if she is simply buying the line that workers, if they even try to organize or if they even try to form a union, are somehow in and of themselves discouraging investment and stopping people from investment, she is buying into a line that no other political government in this province has bought into since the 1920s and that even Sir Oliver Mowat couldn't accept 102 years ago when he was campaigning in this province in an election campaign in 1890 and said, as I would remind you, "If there is antagonism, my sympathy and that of my colleagues is with the masses rather than with the classes."

We have a Liberal Party that has simply decided to forget its best traditions when it comes to dealing with the rights of working people in Ontario.

Mrs McLeod: There goes the Premier again, talking about the right line for today. I'm not buying any lines. I'm just asking questions and I'm just talking about this government's priorities. I'm trying to get past the rhetoric and the ideology to talk about people.

I can't believe that the 115 laid-off workers at Abitibi-Price in Iroquois Falls think this is the right legislation at the right moment, or that the 99 workers at Campbell Mines in Red Lake who were laid off last month would think this should have been the highest priority for this government, or the 280 laid-off workers at Domtar in Red Rock.

If I can move from the throne speech to the government budget document, there's a line in here on page 9 in which the government says, "Private investment is key to the creation of secure jobs in Ontario." Given that statement, I would ask the Premier: What do today's proposals do to encourage that confidence and that private investment that will create jobs and might put some of these people back to work?

Hon Mr Rae: Very clearly what this legislation does is demonstrate a commitment to partnership. What this legislation does is demonstrate a commitment on the part of this government to people, to business and labour working together. I would say to the member that I would like her and I would challenge her -- if she wants to go to the workers at Abitibi-Price and to the workers in Red Rock and to the workers that she's mentioned at Domtar and other places and ask them whether they think that taking away rights or somehow preventing people from organizing is going to add a single job in the economy or is going to do anything to help them, then I suggest the honourable member would be in for quite an argument.

She is trying to put unemployed against people who are working. She's trying to say that those who have a job and are organized are somehow creating the climate of unemployment. I would say to her that if anything creates a climate of dissent in the province, it's precisely the kind of argument she's trying to use today.

Mrs McLeod: If I follow the words that are attributed to the Premier in today's media, I get a sense that his definition of partnership between labour and management is to ask business to lay off any criticisms of their proposals so that they can encourage that kind of constructive working relationship.

Yesterday the Premier called for a particular kind of partnership as he introduced the Sunday shopping legislation which we all did welcome. He called on the retail sector to respond in kind by creating jobs for all of those unemployed young people whom we on this side of the House are so concerned about. So let me just ask the Premier once again: What will these particular proposals being presented today do to encourage and to allow the tourism sector and the retail sector to be competitive so that they can create the jobs for those young people who so desperately need them this summer?

1430

Hon Mr Rae: Let me say to the honourable member, is she saying the government should now repeal pay equity laws? Is she arguing we shouldn't be introducing employment equity?

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: No, I want to ask her directly. Is she saying there should no environmental laws? Is she buying into the line that somehow the fact that people have a right to organize -- is she saying that Ford of Canada is uncompetitive? If Ford of Canada is uncompetitive, why does it invest $1.5 billion in the economy? They're organized. Is she saying that those companies are somehow not organized, that they're not able to do it?

I say to the honourable member that the assumption of her question is one that has its roots in centuries long gone by. She would understand and know full well that it's by building a stronger relationship between management and employee that we provide the most competitive, the most cooperative and the best possible climate for partnership in the province of Ontario. To suggest somehow that employees who are organized are contributing to their firms being uncompetitive is to fly in the face of industrial experience in this province over the past 150 years.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is for the Minister of Labour. This is a sad day for workers in this province. Today is the day this government sold out the thousands and thousands and thousands of Ontario workers who are looking for jobs. No matter how you've dressed it up, no matter how well you have packaged it today, this is still the same --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Can the member take her seat, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

Mrs Witmer: No matter how you've dressed it up, no matter how well you have packaged it today, this is still the same union-driven agenda that contains not one proposal from the business community, and the bottom line is still the same: This legislation will kill jobs. Minister, have you any impact studies or evidence to prove otherwise?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I think it might be advisable for the member for Waterloo North to wait and read the actual legislation, but it seems to me there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this legislation is going to kill the jobs she's talking about. We already have a situation, with the heavy job loss over the last two years in this province under the current existing relations, and one of the things we need very clearly is to change the atmosphere and to develop a cooperative and not a confrontational approach to the business community. That's exactly what we're trying to do and I predict it will mean more, not less jobs.

Mrs Witmer: It's unbelievable that no impact study has been done. This government has been unable to demonstrate this past year the need for this reform. They have not done one impact study. They have not taken a look at how many thousands of jobs this is going to kill. Mr Minister, why was there no impact study done? What were you afraid of, the results?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I want to tell the member that there's absolutely nothing I'm afraid of. I think we're taking the right approach in what we're doing with this legislation.

I want to say also that this government has conducted a lot of consultation with many of the people who will be involved and has listened to their input. We have also had the reports by Noah Meltz of the University of Toronto, who has indicated that the approach we're taking could be a very positive one in terms of an improved labour relations climate in the province, which could lead to more productivity and a better chance for workers and their plants to survive.

Mrs Witmer: There have been no economic impact studies done. We know that workers have been thrown out of work and will continue to be thrown out of work. We know this new legislation is going to facilitate unionization. It's going to increase the union power base. If you haven't done an economic impact study on job loss, Minister, did you do an economic impact study to determine how many more people will join unions this year and next?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I can tell the honourable member that we certainly weren't looking at an impact study that would tell us how many more people would join unions. I think that's almost impossible to figure out.

What we have done is said that some of the things we want to do are to make it easier for workers who are now denied the ability to access or to involve themselves in a union to be able to organize, and see if we can't change the atmosphere between management and labour so that we can have a more productive economy in Ontario.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): My question is to the Premier and it's regarding the union bosses' welfare act. I have a quote from Project Economic Growth. Mr Dale Kerry of the More Jobs Coalition said: "The proposed legislation is imbalanced, out of step with other jurisdictions in North America. It would put a wall up around Ontario." Let's face it, Mr Premier, this is nothing but a cynical payback to the big labour unions that supported you in the election campaign. Is paying those big labour union bosses back really worth costing jobs for Ontario?

Hon Mr Rae: I'm not going to respond to the assumption of the question because frankly it's so preposterous. I would only say to him very clearly that if you look at the way in which the economy has changed in the last 15 or 20 years -- the number of women who've come into the workforce, the number of part-time workers who've come into the workforce, the expansion in the service industry that's taken place -- the idea that one should not look at our labour legislation and try to reform it, since it has not been reformed for 15 years, recognizing there are a number of women and new Canadians who have not had similar access to organizing as the previous generation of workers, to suggest that is not a proper thing for a government to try to do, I just don't agree with.

I'm not surprised that the Tory party, in its efforts to move to the right of even the Reform Party, is now adopting the kind of rhetoric that it is, but I would say to him very directly that if he looks at these reforms and the business community looks at these reforms, they are perfectly in line with what is going on in the rest of Canada. They have a lot to do with trying to improve the climate of labour relations and make sure that a new generation of Canadians has the same access to historic bargaining rights.

Perhaps it's worth pointing out that it was his predecessor governments -- and I hardly recognize that tradition in anything I've heard from that party in the last year and a half -- which put forward labour legislation. We're carrying on in that fine tradition in this province with respect to moving things ahead.

Mr Carr: We are going to have one heck of a mess to clean up after you people are booted out in 1995; I say that.

Some other reports have come in from the All Business Coalition. This is a quote from Paul Nykanen: "The bill will have a corrosive effect on the economic recovery in Ontario. It does nothing to encourage job creation or investment in Ontario and cannot in any way be described as balanced legislation."

If you were really interested in looking at it, Mr Premier, you would look at proposals from the business community and the labour groups, not just from labour. I ask you this: Why didn't one proposal in these proposed labour changes come from any of the business groups? Why didn't you include them if you were going to make changes in Ontario?

1440

Hon Mr Rae: I just say to the honourable member that I couldn't disagree more, in terms of what we've done. We've looked, for example, at the importance of productivity in terms of the preamble. We've looked at establishing stronger working relationships in terms of --

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Preamble? Come on.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Preamble? Are you writing the Constitution? The preamble will have about as much affect as your social charter.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: Yesterday one of the members was saying she was unhappy with the preamble, so we changed it. Now they're saying, "What did you change the preamble for?" There are some people over there who will never be happy. Really, one reaches that conclusion after a certain period of time. I rest my case.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Not even your own party is happy, Bob.

Hon Mr Rae: Oh yes, they are.

Mr Carr: The fact of the matter is that this has been a labour agenda driven by the big labour bosses. There's now a slogan that the business community has. It's "Stay alive until '95." We want to be perfectly clear in our position. Unlike the Liberals, who say this is a bad time, we want to be very clear. When we're elected in 1995 we will repeal this legislation written by Bob White. We want to make it very clear.

This recession has been an Ontario-led recession; 80% of the jobs lost during this recession have been in this province, Mr Premier. How much more do you think Ontario can take of your pieces of legislation?

Hon Mr Rae: To quote Jack Benny, I'm thinking about that one.

I would only say to the honourable member that I think that if you put this legislation in perspective and consider the kind of consultation we've gone through -- and I would ask the members of the Conservative Party and the members of the Liberal Party to really reflect on what actually is being proposed and look at the traditions of labour law and collective bargaining in this province -- for any political party in this province to say it is simply going to wipe out any advance with respect to labour legislation in terms of its ability to allow people to work together is not a terribly contemporary attitude to the need to help management and labour work together in an effective way.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Premier. Mr Premier, our party has asked yourself and the Minister of Labour on numerous occasions to let us know how many jobs you expect this legislation to create. I think it's fair to say that the type of response we have received is one where you and the Minister of Labour have responded with a degree of scorn to those who have created those types of proposals, done that type of work and conducted those types of studies.

Will you on this day finally reveal your intention? Will you let members of this Legislature and the people of Ontario know just what your government expects will be the impact on job creation in this province as a result of that legislation announced by the Minister of Labour today?

Hon Mr Rae: I would just say to the member that the government is genuinely of the belief, and I really am of the belief, that when all is said and done and when the time comes to really look at this thing and to assess its impact and what it is all about, it will help to produce a more positive climate, along with a number of other policies that are in place now and along with what we see happening generally in the economy.

The Treasurer has already indicated in the budget very clearly that we see 1992 as being a year of recovery and growth. We hope it will be a year in which the unemployment numbers will start to come down. We believe they will. It's a year we hope will lead to a more sustained recovery in 1993 and 1994. I believe a more positive climate with respect to labour relations will contribute in a positive way to that and to the kind of recovery we are now beginning, thank goodness, to see some positive signs of.

Mr Offer: I'm sure the Premier understands, as we all expect, that with any particular legislative approach or introduction of legislation we will all want to know what the response, what the reaction, what the result will be in terms of job creation. That is one of the most major issues that affects people in this province today.

I'm sure you also understand that by jumping headstrong into legislation as important as what you have indicated today you would need to have impact studies conducted, because failing to do so would, I suggest, be both reckless and irresponsible to the many hundreds of thousands of people still out of jobs and who have in fact lost jobs. Can and will the Premier assure this House that he has performed those impact studies, and will he table the results of those studies today?

Hon Mr Rae: I think the minister has already referred to the preliminary view of someone like Noah Meltz at the Centre for Industrial Relations. I would say to him that the overall impact in terms of jobs of this measure has to be taken in the context of all the other measures that are in place with respect to employment equity, pay equity and the tax changes we made that were very well received by the private sector. We've had indications they are leading to some increased investment.

We have some positive signs with respect to major employers: the Bell Canada-Northern Telecom announcement, the Ford announcement I have already referred to, the Chrysler announcement that is going to lead to the opening of the plants in Brampton, the Mitsubishi announcement there as well. There are some very positive signs at work in the economy.

I know it is seen as being the historical role of the opposition to paint things far gloomier than they really are. No one on this side is underestimating the difficulty and the tough time we have been through, but to somehow suggest the Ontario economy is not recovering and not getting stronger day by day is to fly in the face of the facts we're all beginning to see around us.

LANDFILL SITES

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I have a question to the Minister of the Environment. First, I find it unbelievable you should make an announcement today concerning some 57 dump sites in the greater Toronto area and not have the courage to come to this Legislature and announce in this House exactly what your intentions are for the future garbage problems in the GTA -- absolutely unacceptable.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): You have it wrong.

Mr Stockwell: The member for Durham West is suggesting I have it wrong. I remember you told me I had it wrong when you said you weren't to get any dump sites. Now you have five, so I wonder who's wrong.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member direct his question through the Chair.

Mr Stockwell: On November 5, 1987, you stated: "I would like the minister" -- then-minister Jim Bradley -- "to give this House a categorical assurance that no additional landfill will be approved in the region of Durham or anywhere else in this province without a complete environmental assessment that would allow all the various alternatives to be examined and to be exposed." It is interesting the minister would refer to exposing all alternatives when in Bill 143 there is no complete environmental assessment. No region can even consider a site outside its boundary. My question is: Why have you deprived the people, the very same people you made this promise to, of the rights you advocated some five years ago?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): Let me make it very clear to this member and to all members of the Legislature that I did not make an announcement this morning with respect to potential landfill sites within the greater Toronto area. In accordance with the legislation of Bill 143 that has been adopted by this House, an agency that was created to be a crown corporation, I followed through on the policies set down in that legislation by my ministry and made an announcement with respect to a list of potential landfill sites. That's what happened this morning.

Mr Stockwell: First, that wasn't the question. The question was: Why have you changed your tune from five years ago? Second, for this minister to fob this decision off on nameless, faceless bureaucrats is the height of hypocrisy from when she sat on this side of the House and chastised the then minister for his indecision and inaction. The question to the minister stands. Why can you not offer the people of this province the same security you insisted on some five years ago?

I have a quote from the member for Durham West on election night. On September 6 the honourable member said, "We have a population that has asked for a credible government that will really listen to the people." He got elected on this issue.

Why have you fobbed this off on faceless, nameless bureaucrats who carry the can for your inaction and incompetence? Fifty-seven sites; 57 communities. You've done away with the not-in-my-backyard theory simply because, Madam Minister, you are putting a garbage dump in everybody's backyard.

Hon Mrs Grier: Nothing could be further from the case. The member has been in this House long enough to have heard the debate on Bill 143. He knows precisely what kind of process has been put in place, an open and fair process that will lead to the assessment of landfill sites under the Environmental Assessment Act and will mean that those 57 sites that have been identified by the Interim Waste Authority will be reduced to three preferred sites, one in Durham, one in Peel and one in York-Metro, a year from now. That is very different from the process that was in place before we became the government, a flawed process that was not open, fair and under the Environmental Assessment Act.

I have not changed any tune. I and the member for Durham West have followed through on the commitments we gave in 1990.

1450

DAY CARE

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Minister of Community and Social Services has a response to a question asked earlier by the member for Burlington South.

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): Yesterday the member asked a question which implied that the ministry is not interested in receiving presentations from parents during the current child care consultation. I was deeply concerned, so I looked into the matter.

I want to tell him that indeed the person he mentioned in the House was put on a waiting list to give a presentation, because more than 80 groups or individuals had asked to speak at the Barrie consultation. We were only able to accommodate 27 presentations in total. Those were chosen in equal groups from the various interest groups who had presented themselves.

Mrs Till had a number of offers in terms of how she could participate. She was offered a chance to participate with the three major parent groups who presented. She is a member of Kids First, a group of parents who gave a 20-minute presentation and presented essentially what she wanted. She was encouraged to send in a written submission and she was also informed of additional consultation dates. Mrs Till did speak during the open period that was left. She had the opportunity both to speak and to ask questions, and as well she had a lengthy discussion with one of my staff following the consultation.

In all, 110 formal presentations have been given by parents during this consultation and many more in the informal sessions.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): The questions raised yesterday had to do with the closing of day care spaces in Barrie, the outlandish and inappropriate statements of the minister's parliamentary assistant, with outright threats to parents and representatives of organizations. You have chosen to respond only to this portion of the question.

I would only say this, Madam Minister: If you're so convinced by what your staff now advise you, why is it that York region has immediately called for public hearings in order to allow parents the right and the opportunity to be heard on this sensitive, important issue involving their children? If York region councillors felt it was that important, that your process was so lacking that they've called for additional public hearings, I think your briefing notes are sadly lacking.

I respect that you have undertaken an examination of this case, but frankly, Mrs Till was assured she was on the docket. She called early in April, and it was the 11th-hour notice of her being asked not to speak. She could have made alternative arrangements to go to one of your other consultation processes, and that is what your staff memo should have indicated to you.

Hon Mrs Boyd: Obviously the member has different information than my staff member got directly from this person.

Mr Jackson: I talked to Mrs Till yesterday.

Hon Mrs Boyd: So did my staff member in Barrie.

In reference to the other questions, I did answer his question about the closure of centres. In reference to his question about my parliamentary assistant, again, my parliamentary assistant recalls the conversation with the person mentioned by the member, but quite denies that the tone or the threats the member alleges were made.

LANDFILL SITES

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): We've heard, and it's been brought up today, that the Minister of the Environment, although she claims she did it through another organization, released 57 potential sites in and around the greater Metropolitan Toronto area. Ironically, on the first official day of the Earth Summit you paid tribute to, at the very same time, you know very well that you have backtracked on so many of the promises that you made when you sat as critic for the Ministry of the Environment and throughout the 1990 election campaign.

The fact of the matter is that right from the start you poisoned the process in terms of what would happen with York by saying right up front that Metro's garbage was going to York. Further to that, people are shocked to learn that the NDP government, those great protectors of the environment, are recommending and allowing a potential landfill site in the Rouge Valley.

My question requires merely a yes or no answer. Can the minister tell the House whether she supports the placing of a garbage dump on lands in the Rouge Valley? Yes or no, Minister.

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): This member has been through all the hearings, all the debate about the bill that put in place the process. A fair and open process has been put in place. Criteria have been discussed with the public over the last eight months. As a result of that process, a list of potential landfill sites has been released today by the Interim Waste Authority. Over the next year, further criteria, further evaluation, will occur until preferred sites are selected. That is the process that was put in place by my policies, and I take full responsibility for that. But having put those policies in place, having put that legislation in place, having created the organization, it has to be a fair, open environmental assessment. Then the decision will be made.

Mr McClelland: The fact of the matter remains, Minister, that one of the sites is in the Rouge Valley. That fact remains, and you can try to dance out of it as well as you like without addressing the answer directly. You fail to respond because the fact of the matter is that you, by what you are doing, are allowing the Rouge Valley to be on the table as a potential site. You and you alone bear the responsibility for that.

When the member for Etobicoke West put a question to you, you said that you stick to your tune. Well, try this tune on. There are a lot of people in this same boat now, 57 groups. "No dump in the Rouge." Do you remember those words? Perhaps you'll want to turn a little bit to your right. There is a gentleman sitting beside you, the Premier of the province. These were his words on December 11, 1990: "No dump in the Rouge." People believed him then on that issue, as they did on many other issues which have certainly proven what value that is in terms of commitments made. Once again, Minister, you and your government have gone back on your word and on your commitment. The Minister of the Environment has got to be embarrassed about this.

I conclude with this. Do you still sing this same tune? The words of your Premier: "No dump in the Rouge." Here's another one. Here's a dandy little tune for you to remember: "There are no plans of any kind by this government to use the Rouge Valley as a dump, none at all." How about that tune? How does that play?

Hon Mrs Grier: It plays very well. If the member will go back and look at the criteria that were established by the Interim Waste Authority for the selection of sites, he will find that the statements I have made and the statements the Premier has made are entirely consistent with the criteria that were developed by the Interim Waste Authority and with the selection of candidate sites that has been made.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): To the Minister of Labour: Mr Minister, why have you and the government of Ontario left wide open the inclusion of agriculture in the Ontario Labour Relations Act when the minister admits that the report of the task force on agriculture is not yet available? You and I both know that agriculture wants no part of OLRA.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I am not sure that's quite what I would read out of the meeting I had with them this morning, I can say to the member. I know their views. The task force has a report prepared. They will be issuing it very shortly and we will take a serious look at that task force report when we get it.

Mr Villeneuve: We know that if indeed this legislation is allowed to include agriculture by regulation it will mean no input from this chamber, no input from agriculture, no input from the processors of food. It will reduce the farm-gate value of farm produce and increase the value at the retail level. Why would you go through the back door via regulation and disallow all of us from having input? Mr Minister, we need an answer.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I can assure the honourable member that as soon as we've made any decisions he'll get the answer. I can tell him right now that they've made a number of suggestions. One of them is separate legislation. We're looking at all of their suggestions.

1500

METHANE GAS LEAK

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Madam Minister, it has come to my attention, through a letter written by a district office of your ministry, that elevated levels of methane gas have been found to exist on the construction site at 5001 Finch Avenue in the Bluehaven community in my riding of Yorkview.

Minister, on November 6, 1991, I expressed my concerns and the concerns of my constituents over the environmental safety of the proposed construction site. At that time, you requested that further migration studies be conducted by the developer to ensure that the future occupants of the project would not be impacted by the adjoining former landfill site. Madam Minister, I'm very concerned about this and I need to know what's happening.

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): I'm glad to respond to that question because the member has had a concern about this particular project from its very beginning and has raised the issue with me. As a result of his request my ministry required that the site at Finch and Ardwick be monitored by the developer, and that has occurred since November 1991.

In December 1991 the monitoring wells were vandalized, which was unfortunate, but we managed to get them restarted in February when construction on the site started. On April 1 the ministry district office received the monitoring data for February and March, and those results were indeed high in methane.

The methane is a problem when in confined spaces. We have met with the developer, with ministry officials and with the city of North York to discuss the city's role in this and the developer's work plan, but I'd like to give the member an assurance that the building will not be allowed to be enclosed as long as there is a methane problem.

Mr Mammoliti: Madam Minister, the district officer states in his letter, "We are advising you that this closed landfill site may affect residents along Archway Crescent." Madam Minister, I'm concerned about those residents. I need to know what to say to those residents. The plan has got to be submitted from what I can gather. I need to know as quickly as possible. Can I get an assurance from you that these residents will hear something to make them feel a little more comfortable?

Hon Mrs Grier: I can understand the concern of adjacent residents, but I point out to the member that the landfill site was closed in 1966. There has been no evidence of any problems as a result of that in the homes that have already been constructed.

But I'm glad to be able to tell him that a draft plan for dealing with the issue was submitted to my ministry at the meeting that was held earlier in the week, that plan is being reviewed by the ministry, and I will of course keep the member advised so that he can keep the residents of the area advised as that review is completed.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I read from the materials supplied by the Ministry of Labour, "Task force has made recommendations to the government, which is giving them" -- meaning the recommendations -- "serious consideration with respect to proposed labour changes in the agricultural sector."

I want the Minister of Agriculture and Food to stand in his place now and provide to the public his interventions on behalf of the agricultural industry with respect to the need that he sees with respect to these amended changes, so that the public knows where the Minister of Agriculture and Food stands on this very important and timely issue.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Right from the beginning, when the discussion paper first came out from the Minister of Labour, we discussed the fact that the exemption that was currently in place for agriculture would be lifted and agricultural workers would be treated the same as all other workers in the province, as they are in most other provinces in the country.

I've been very up front from the beginning that this was the way it was going to be. We've decided to work with the farm community, labour and government. We've set up a task force. It worked very well together. It was an excellent model for workers in this province. The farmers and the industry have come through with an excellent task force report.

Mr Elston: I want to know, since the Minister of Labour just said that a report was about to be provided, who is telling us the correct tale, because you have just confirmed what the labour document says, and that is that the task force has already reported.

Since all these people already have the report, what is the Minister of Agriculture and Food hiding from the farm communities of this province and what is the Minister of Labour trying to hide from the farm communities of this province? Why will they not share with the public the report which this document says is ready and which they are trying to hide to preclude any kind of extra reaction from the agricultural sector of this province? Why are you destabilizing agriculture in this province?

Hon Mr Buchanan: We're not destabilizing agriculture. The Minister of Labour and I met with many of the farm leaders an hour or two ago to discuss what was being brought forward today. We were very open with the farm leaders. They are aware of what's in the task force report.

Mr Elston: You said it wasn't ready yet.

Hon Mr Buchanan: It's not ready for release yet. Reports released by the government are required to be released in both official languages. The translation is not ready yet and, quite frankly, we're not going to release it until we have both reports ready. We're waiting for the French translation. At that time they will both be released at the same time.

MINISTERIAL INFORMATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: This has been a policy announced by the government in this place and it has been shared with people outside this place. The content of the report has been given to people who are not members, and that is a violation, a breach of my privileges as a member, because it says in here that the recommendations are now with the government.

The Minister of Labour said it was not ready. He has told us something that is not true. The Minister of Agriculture and Food has confirmed that it is ready and they have shared material with people other than ourselves here as elected representatives. That breaches our privilege.

The Speaker: I understand very well the member's concern. The member will know that what the standing orders provide for is that copies of statements made by ministers will be made available to opposition critics in advance but, as far as reports commissioned by governments are concerned, there is no requirement for them to release those reports to the House prior to releasing them to anyone outside the House. But I fully understand and appreciate the concerns expressed by the member.

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the minister responsible for disability issues. As the minister has publicized, this is National Access Awareness Week, when we aim to raise awareness of the right of disabled persons to full access to education, employment, housing, recreation and transportation.

At the same time, the Minister of Community and Social Services recently announced that Ontario's associations for community living will receive funding increases from her government of just 0.5%, less than half the rate of inflation. Community Living, Mississauga, which has closed its waiting lists, must now watch its existing waiting lists wait longer, cut two recreation programs and lay off a case manager who helps parents care for their disabled children at home.

I ask you, Minister -- so much for access -- is this how you want to mark National Access Awareness Week?

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister Responsible for Disability Issues): Since the question relates to my colleague's ministry with specific details, I would like to ask her to answer the question.

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): The member opposite is well aware of the budgetary difficulties that we face in terms of all the transfer payment agencies. There is no question, and I have been very clear with members in this House, that we are not happy with the level of support we are able to give our transfer payment agencies, that it is going to require them to do business in a way they have not done before, that we are prepared to give them what assistance we can to try to ensure that client services remain high.

But we are well aware and are making no secret with our agencies that we recognize this very low transfer payment agency payment is going to create real difficulties for them in performing the kinds of tasks they want to do and that we are going to have to work very carefully to try to streamline our procedures and to try to ensure that clients are not disadvantaged as a result.

1510

Mrs Marland: We've just had a further example of what is wrong with giving one person six different hats to wear. This minister has ignored the seniors, she now ignores the disabled and she palms the question off to the Minister of Community and Social Services. We know there isn't a lot of money. We understand that. But what we're saying is, are the priorities of this government so great that it can spend $100 million putting private day care operators out of business, it can spend $16 million on bilingual signs and it doesn't know how to prioritize in terms of human need?

The Minister of Community and Social Services, who's now answering the question that other minister should have been answering, has announced that funding for the sheltered workshop programs has been cut by $5 million; $2 million of that money was to be redirected for supported employment programs for disabled persons. Your government is slashing $3 million from employment programs for disabled adults.

My question, Minister, is this: Is this what you want for disabled persons? Do you support the message in these budget cuts that Ontario believes disabled persons come last?

Hon Mrs Boyd: Of course that's not what this ministry believes or what this government believes. We have certainly taken $5 million out of the sheltered workshop program over two years because that is totally consistent with this government and the previous government's policy of trying to move people into the supported employment area at the speed at which they are ready. Many sheltered workshops have closed over the space of this province because our associations for community living and many of our community groups which we have built over the last number of years in order to accommodate people in the community have made their own decision that this is a more appropriate way of integrating those with disabilities into the community.

We are putting $2 million of the $5 million directly back into supportive employment programs and have increased in many ways over the last five years the services that are available in communities. We intend to continue with that both under the multi-year plan and in terms of the community planning we have for the developmentally handicapped.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I had a question for the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area but she stepped out. Don't despair, Mr Speaker, I have lots of questions and I'm going to ask a spur-of-the-moment question to the Minister of Culture and Communications.

LIBRARY GRANTS

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): When can we who represent so many constituents expect to hear about the library grants?

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): I know it is a concern. There are many libraries out there in the communities that have been waiting and have been patient. As everyone knows, my ministry has just gone through an additional amount of cuts and I had to wait until everything was in place before I could finalize the package. I'm very pleased to announce that the library grants was an area I was trying to protect to the very end. I'm hoping to have that information out to all of the libraries at the beginning of next week. I know they'll be very pleased to be able to then receive the information, finalize their operational grants and their bases for their budgets.

Mr Mills: I know my library in Newcastle will look forward to that with a great deal of anticipation.

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My question is to my good friend from the north the Treasurer of Ontario. The Treasurer will know that concern for the unemployment of younger people in northern Ontario is of some grave concern actually to many of us across northern Ontario, and especially members from that area.

Mr Treasurer, many of the university students in my riding have returned home. Today is June 4 and a lot of them have not yet secured employment. A lot of them are looking for this employment of course to ensure that they can go back to school in September. As well, as you will know, over the next couple of weeks we'll have high school students out of school looking for jobs.

Treasurer, let me take you back a ways. The Premier has done a good job of taking people back. I'd like to take you back to April 6, 1982, where during the last recession when the government of the day faced some similar circumstances. You came up with a quote:

"Mr Chairman, I find it ironical we are debating something referred to as youth employment. One would think we would never need to debate unemployment among our young people in this country. If any group of people should automatically be taken into the workforce, it should be the young people."

Mr Treasurer, I ask you, what has changed?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I'm sorry, Mr Speaker. I really didn't hear the question that the member put at the end of his preamble.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member repeat his question?

Mr Miclash: I was asking about youth unemployment in northern Ontario. I have come forth with a quote where you said, back when you were a member, that the young people should automatically be taken into the workforce, that it should be the young people who should automatically be taken into the workforce.

Mr Treasurer, all I'm asking is, why are our young people today not a priority? What has changed since you last made the statement?

Hon Mr Laughren: Mr Speaker, the member is being repetitive in his questions. I think that's not quite in order.

I would say the member asked a serious question. I was at a meeting in North Bay last weekend with a very large group of people in attendance, and in the question and answer session I had with them, that was the number one issue that kept coming up, "What about youth unemployment in northern Ontario?" We all know that youth unemployment is a problem all over Ontario, not simply in northern Ontario and not simply in Metro Toronto either, and we are concerned about that.

Certainly nothing's changed in my sentiments about the importance of youth having jobs in the province of Ontario. This year we have put in place a number of programs -- not as much as I would like to see, but I think the member for Kenora knows as well that a member of the government, the member for St Andrew-St Patrick, the parliamentary assistant to the Premier, is preparing a report and very shortly we will be presenting that report. I hope at that point we will be able to do something for the unemployed youth in this province. I know, because of the depth of the recession, that we won't be able to do as much as people would like, but I do think we should do something more.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. I do so, quite frankly, with some sensitivity and, I will be very candid, a little bit of concern on how to approach this in a manner that I hope is not confrontational but I think very important.

A few minutes ago I listened to the Minister of the Environment respond to the member for Yorkview. The response, as I heard it, was as follows: that the people were in no danger -- the member of Yorkview raising the question with specific reference to Archway Crescent.

I want to know -- and bear with me if you will, Mr Speaker -- who has been misled by the Minister of the Environment. I'm glad she's here. I say this very cautiously: Was the member for Yorkview misled or were the people who have received these two letters over the signature of senior officials in the Ministry of Environment's office misled?

I will provide these copies to you and ask you to compare them to the record of Hansard in terms of the response given by the Minister of the Environment who said that the people were in no imminent danger. It says here, "They should take necessary steps to ensure the safety." A further line of it says, "It's the opinion that the levels may represent a hazard to the people."

Apart from the substance of the issue at hand, the substance in terms of privilege is this: The people of this province, and myself as a member of the opposition and critic, have been given one set of information. The member for Yorkview has been given another. It can't be both ways. The record either has to be corrected in terms of what has been represented to me or represented to that member. I leave this with you, Mr Speaker, to compare with Hansard and ask you to --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): While I recognize the concern of the member for Brampton North, he should know that each member who is recognized to ask a question of the minister must of course judge the response that he or she receives and what course of action the member may wish to take beyond that. What the member indeed has raised is not so much a matter of privilege as a matter of interest in questions which were asked earlier. I trust the member was not suggesting that the minister had misled the House.

1520

Mr McClelland: I said I'd say that very carefully and delicately and --

The Speaker: Will the member take his seat. The member will know that it is not appropriate to accuse anyone of misleading the House, and I would ask the member to reflect on that for a moment and upon reflection perhaps you will stand and withdraw that comment.

Mr McClelland: Mr Speaker, I will withdraw the terminology "misleading the House." I will ask the minister to correct the record and indicate which of the two conflicting messages is correct.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Mr Speaker, I just simply want to ask -- I didn't raise this point earlier -- the government has failed to make any mention of the honorees for seniors' achievement for Seniors' Month. I would have hoped there would have been unanimous consent and I certainly would like --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. That's not a point of order. The member should know that.

PETITIONS

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

I am happy to add my name to this petition.

ONTARIO WASTE MANAGEMENT CORP

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I have a petition, again to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ontario Waste Management Corp is proposing to build and operate a huge centralized toxic waste incinerator and landfill site in the heart of Ontario's farm land of Niagara;

"Whereas the toxic waste must be treated at the source because transportation of such huge volumes of toxic waste on our highways is suicidal;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to change the mandate and directions being promoted by this crown corporation, the Ontario Waste Management Corp."

To this petition I affix my name and there are 450 other signed petitioners.

YOUTH MINIMUM WAGE

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has stated its objective to eliminate the youth minimum wage differential by 1992; and

"Whereas such action will seriously reduce available job opportunities for Ontario students;

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

"Until the Minister of Labour can assure the Ontario student population that no student jobs will be lost by the elimination of the youth minimum wage differential, we urge the government to maintain the current differential."

This is signed by a number of students in my riding.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

That's signed by 388 citizens of the province from Chatham, Windsor, St George and Bolton, and I too have affixed my name to the signatures.

LAND-LEASED COMMUNITIES

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to follow through to release the committee report on land-leased communities and the proposed legislation to give adequate protection to individuals who live in land-leased communities."

It's been signed by 13 people in the Sutton-By-The-Lake area.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

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

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

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

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

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

This is signed by some 335 people from Paris, Guelph, Toronto, Cambridge and Trenton, and to which I also attach my signature.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by 49 citizens of the county of Middlesex who petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reject the report of the greater London arbitrator, Mr John Brant. There are many of us in Middlesex who are very concerned about this report, about the amount of agricultural land that has been given over to the city of London. We have very limited agricultural land in this province and we need to preserve all of it. In light of that, the citizens of Middlesex ask that this report by Mr Brant be set aside. I have signed my name to this petition.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: While I completely agree with the honourable member saying what a terrible job the government is doing, that was not a petition she was reading; it was a statement on her own behalf.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Thank you. That was not a point of order.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Further petitions? I want to remind members we're under time allocation.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition this afternoon. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

It's signed by 350 residents of Ontario from communities such as Kingston, Gananoque, Chatham, Orillia and Chelmsford. I am affixing my name to this petition.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): I'm pleased to present, on behalf of 47 parents at the St Teresa school, a petition that states:

"We, the ratepayers, parents, staff and students of the Metropolitan Separate School Board are concerned about the way in which Catholic education is funded by the Ontario government and Metropolitan Toronto.

"Although separate schools have been given the right to provide education to the end of grade 12 OAC, they were never given equal funding. For example, in 1991 a Catholic elementary school child in Metro was educated with 75% of the money spent on his or her public school counterpart and the Catholic high school student was allotted only 70% of the money spent.

"These differences represent a shortfall of $1,678 per student at the elementary level and $2,502 at the secondary level.

"We urge you to act now to restructure the way in which municipal and provincial tax dollars are apportioned so that Ontario's two principal education systems are funded not only fully but with equity and equality."

I affix my signature of support.

1530

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I have also a petition dealing with the new labour law reforms and also with regard to the studies which have been done by outside bodies and not by this government, which doesn't seem to know whether or not it's going to have an impact. Outside studies have shown that.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas independent and non-partisan economic studies" --

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Non-partisan?

Mr Sterling: Yes, the member from the NDP is correct. They are non-partisan studies.

-- "have concluded that the proposed changes to Ontario labour legislation will increase job losses; and

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

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

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

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

That's signed by some 260 people from London, Lambeth, Ottawa, Cambridge, and Nickel Belt. I have signed my name.

REAL ESTATE GAINS

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here signed by a number of constituents.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario" -- it's only eight people, but I think it's important that I present it -- "to urge the Treasurer, Floyd Laughren, not to proceed with an additional tax on real estate gains."

I affix my name.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I am pleased to present about 6,700 names in the greater Hamilton area, mostly in NDP ridings, as part of about 142,000 petitions that I've received:

"Petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

That has my signature of support and is being taken to the Speaker's table by Sarah McDowell from the great riding of Burlington South.

LAND-LEASED COMMUNITIES

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition here signed by a number of people in my riding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's been signed by residents in Sutton-By-The-Lake on Juno Crescent and Damsel Circle and Geneva Court and Hummingbird, and I'm just going to fix my name to this here.

TAX EXEMPTION

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have a petition from the residents of the town of Carleton Place. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"The purpose of this petition is to secure exemption from property tax for the Victoria School Museum. Since 1872 until 1987, the building and lot were municipally owned and therefore tax-exempt. For several years the Lanark County Board of Education and the town of Carleton Place reimbursed the society for up to the amount of the taxes levied against the museum. The board of education has discontinued this arrangement.

"The Carleton Place and Beckworth Historical Society is a volunteer non-profit organization. Through the museum, the society is providing a significant educational service for this community. This is made possible because its members and others are willing to contribute their time and talents.

"We believe that the society should be completely exempt from any property tax. We are asking the House to direct the Ministry of Revenue to have this tax eliminated."

That's signed by approximately 500 citizens of Carleton Place, and I hereby affix my own signature.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LABOUR RELATIONS AND EMPLOYMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL ET À L'EMPLOI

Mr Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 40, An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Collective Bargaining and Employment / Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui a trait à la négociation collective et à l'emploi.

1544

The House divided on Mr Mackenzie's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 62

Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Rae, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward (Brantford), Ward (Don Mills), Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays -- 26

Arnott, Callahan, Carr, Conway, Cunningham, Fawcett, Harnick, Henderson, Jackson, Jordan, Kwinter, Marland, McClelland, McLeod, Miclash, Murdoch (Grey), Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Runciman, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Turnbull, Wilson (Simcoe West).

ARNPRIOR-NEPEAN RAILWAY COMPANY INC ACT, 1992

Mr Jordan moved first reading of Bill Pr47, An Act respecting Arnprior-Nepean Railway Company Inc.

Motion agreed to.

TASK FORCE ON LABOUR RELATIONS ACT REVIEW AND INQUIRY ACT FOR THE GREATER TORONTO AREA, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LE GROUPE DE TRAVAIL CHARGÉ D'ENQUÊTER SUR L'INCIDENCE DES MODIFICATIONS DE LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL DANS LE TERRITOIRE DU GRAND TORONTO

Mr Carr moved first reading of An Act respecting the establishment of an inquiry into the effect of the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act on employment and in particular employment opportunities for women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities, native peoples, youth and workers over the age of forty-five; on investment and in particular investment in new plants or the retrofit of existing plants; on entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial environment; on competitiveness and in particular the competitive tax position of Ontario companies; on productivity and in particular the potential for lost time due to strikes, lock-outs, layoffs and complete or partial plant closures; in the Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Industry; the Furniture and Fixtures Industries including the Wooden Household Furniture Industry, the Upholstered Household Furniture Industry, the Office Furniture Industry, the Bed Spring and Mattress Industry, and the Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Furniture and Fixture Industry; the Printing, Publishing and Allied Industries including the Commercial Printing Industry, the Business Form Industry, the Platemaking Typesetting and Binding Industry, the Book Publishing Industry and the Newspaper, Magazine and Periodical Combined Publishing and Printing Industry; and the Electrical and Electronic Products Industries including the Small Electrical Appliance Industry, the Major Appliance Industry, the Lighting Fixture Industry, the Electric Lamp and Shade Industry, the Record Player, Radio and Television Industry, the Telecommunication Equipment Industry, the Electronic Parts and Components Industry, the Electric Computing and Peripheral Equipment Industry, the Electronic Office, Store and Business Machine Industry; the Wood Industries including the Shingles, and Shake Industry, the Sawmill and Planing Mill Products Industry, the Veneer and Plywood Industry, the Prefabricated Wooden Building Industry, the Wooden Kitchen Cabinet and Bathroom Vanity Industry, the Wood Preservation Industry, the Particle Board Industry and the Wafer Board Industry; the Leather and Allied Products Industry including Leather Tanneries, the Footwear Industry, and the Luggage, Purse and Handbag Industry; the Textile Products Industries including the Carpet, Mat and Rug Industry, the Canvas and Related Products Industry, the Household Products of Textile Materials Industry and the Tire Cord Fabric Industry; the Sweater Industry; the Food, Beverage, Drug Retail Industries including Grocery Stores, Specialty Food Stores, Specialty Food Stores, Liquor Stores, Since Stores, Beer Stores, Pharmacies, and Patent Medicine and Toiletries; the Transportation Industry including the Scheduled Air Transport Industry, the Airport Operations Industry, the Aircraft Rental Industry, the Aircraft Servicing Industry, Service Industries Incidental to Railway Transport, the Freight and Passenger Water Transport Industry, the Ferry Industry, the Maine Towing Industry, the Ship Chartering Industry, the Marine Cargo Handling Industry, the harbour and Port Operation Industry; that operate in the Greater Toronto

Area including the Regions of York, Toronto, Peel and Mississauga including the cities and towns of Mississauga, Brampton, Toronto, Bolton, Orangeville, Cledon, Woodbridge, Vaughan, Richmond Hill, Newmarket, Aurora, Markham and Sutton.

1550

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Mr Carr has moved first reading of An Act respecting the establishment of an inquiry into the effect of the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act on employment and in particular employment opportunities for women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities, native peoples, youth and workers over the age of forty-five; on investment and in particular investment in new plants or the retrofit of existing plants; on entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial environment; on competitiveness and in particular the competitive tax position of Ontario companies; on productivity and in particular the potential for lost time due to strikes, lock-outs, layoffs and complete or partial plant closures; in the Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Industry; the Furniture and Fixtures Industries including Wooden Household Furniture Industry, the Upholstered Household Furniture Industry, the Office Furniture Industry, the Bed Spring and Mattress Industry, and the Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Furniture and Fixture Industry; the Printing, Publishing and Allied Industries including the Commercial Printing Industry, the Business Form Industry, the Platemaking Typesetting and Binding Industry; the Book Publishing Industry and the Newspaper, Magazine and Periodical Combined Publishing and Printing Industry; and the Electrical and Electronic Products Industries including the Small Electrical Appliance Industry, the Major Appliance Industry, the Lighting Fixture Industry, the Electric Lamp and Shade Industry, the Record Player, Radio and Television Industry, the Telecommunication Equipment Industry, the Electronic Parts and Components Industry, the Electric Computing and Peripheral Equipment Industry, the Electronic Office, Store and Business Machine Industry; the Wood Industries including the Shingles, and Shake Industry, the Sawmill and Planing Mill Products Industry, the Veneer and Plywood Industry, the Prefabricated Wooden Building Industry, the Wooden Kitchen Cabinet and Bathroom Vanity Industry, the Wood Preservation Industry, the Particle Board Industry and the Wafer Board Industry; the Leather and Allied Products Industry including Leather Tanneries, the Footwear Industry, and the Luggage, Purse and Handbag Industry; the Textile Products Industries including the Carpet, Mat and Rug Industry, the Canvas and Related Products Industry, the Household Products of Textile Materials Industry and the Tire Cord Fabric Industry; the Sweater Industry; the Food, Beverage, Drug Retail Industries including Grocery Stores, Specialty Food Stores, Specialty Food Stores, Liquor Stores, Since Stores, Beer Stores, Pharmacies, and Patent Medicine and Toiletries; the Transportation Industry including the Scheduled Air Transport Industry, the Airport Operations Industry, the Aircraft Rental Industry, the Aircraft Servicing Industry, Service Industries Incidental to Railway Transport, the Freight and Passenger Water Transport Industry, the Ferry Industry, the Maine Towing Industry, the Ship Chartering Industry, the Marine Cargo Handling Industry, the harbour and Port Operation Industry; that operate in the Greater Toronto Area including the Regions of York, Toronto, Peel and Mississauga including the cities and towns of Mississauga, Brampton, Toronto, Bolton, Orangeville, Cledon, Woodbridge, Vaughan, Richmond Hill, Newmarket, Aurora, Markham and Sutton.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Carr's motion carry?

All those in favour of Mr Carr's motion, please say "aye."

All those opposed to Mr Carr's motion, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

1600

The Acting Speaker: Does Mr Carr have a statement pursuant to the introduction of his bill?

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): This particular bill -- the reason we are doing this is that the government of the day has not taken to do any economic analysis of its proposed Labour Relations Act changes. As such, we think it is very important, dealing particularly with some of the opportunities for jobs that will be lost; in particular, the unemployment opportunities for women, some of them racial minorities, persons with disabilities, the native people, youth and workers over the age of 45. It deals with some of the companies that historically have been listed in the back, and in that particular case we've looked at everything from the furniture industry to the transportation industry to the computer industry. We've also done it on a regional basis, incorporating some of the communities of Mississauga, Brampton, Toronto, Bolton, Orangeville, Woodbridge, Vaughan, Richmond Hill, Newmarket, Aurora and Markham.

The fact of the matter is that this piece of legislation is very important because the government has not chosen to introduce any impact studies, and this would do that.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member opposite just introduced an important bill that could affect some areas of my riding. He mentioned the town of Sutton. Actually, it's the community of Sutton within the town of Georgina.

The Acting Speaker: I'm sorry; that's not a point of order. You will have the opportunity when debating to put your remarks on the record.

TASK FORCE ON LABOUR RELATIONS ACT REVIEW AND INQUIRY ACT FOR THE SOUTHWEST REGION OF ONTARIO, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LE GROUPE DE TRAVAIL CHARGÉ D'ENQUÊTER SUR L'INCIDENCE DES MODIFICATIONS DE LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL DANS LA RÉGION DU SUD-OUEST DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Harris moved first reading of An Act respecting the establishment of an inquiry into the effect of the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act on employment and in particular employment opportunities for women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities, native peoples, youth and workers over the age of forty-five who have recently lost their jobs; on investment and in particular investment in new plants or the retrofit of existing plants; on entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial environment; on competitiveness and in particular the competitive tax position of Ontario companies; on productivity and in particular the potential for lost time due to strikes, lock-outs, layoffs and complete or partial plant closures; in the Agricultural Industry including Field Crop, Fruit and Vegetable Farms, in the Food Products and Processing Industries, in the Petrochemical Industry; in the Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Industry; in the Chemical Fertilizer Industry; in the Rubber Products Industry; in the Plastic Products Industry; in the Automotive Parts Industry; in the Truck Assembly Industry; in the Steel Drum Industry; in the Wire and Hardware Goods Industry, and in the Wooden Box and Pallet Industry, that operate in the Counties of Windsor, Essex, Lambton and Kent including the cities of Windsor, Chatham and Sarnia, and the towns of Amherstburg, Blenheim, Bothwell, Dresden, Forest, Grand Bend, Harrow, Leamington, Merlin, Oil Springs, Petrolia, Ridgetown, Thamesville, Thedford, Tilbury, Wallaceburg, Watford, Wheatley and Wyoming.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Mr Harris has moved first reading of An Act respecting the establishment of an inquiry into the effect of the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act on employment and in particular employment opportunities for women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities, native peoples, youth and workers over the age of forty-five who have recently lost their jobs; on investment and in particular investment in new plants or the retrofit of existing plants; on entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial environment; on competitiveness and in particular the competitive tax position of Ontario companies; on productivity and in particular the potential for lost time due to strikes, lock-outs, layoffs and complete or partial plant closures; in the Agricultural Industry including Field Crop, Fruit and Vegetable Farms, in the Food Products and Processing Industries, in the Petrochemical Industry, in the Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Industry, in the Chemical Fertilizer Industry, in the Rubber Products Industry, in the Plastic Products Industry, in the Automotive Parts Industry, in the Truck Assembly Industry, in the Steel Drum Industry, in the Wire and Hardware Goods Industry, and in the Wooden Box and Pallet Industry, that operate in the Counties of Windsor, Essex, Lambton and Kent including the cities of Windsor, Chatham and Sarnia, and the towns of Amherstburg, Blenheim, Bothwell, Dresden, Forest, Grand Bend, Harrow, Leamington, Merlin, Oil Springs, Petrolia, Ridgetown, Thamesville, Thedford, Tilbury, Wallaceburg, Watford, Wheatley and Wyoming.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Harris's motion carry? Carried.

Motion agreed to.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): This is a bill entitled An Act respecting the establishment of an inquiry --

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Dispense.

The Acting Speaker: Dispense? Agreed?

Interjection: No, let's hear it.

The Acting Speaker: We have a dissenting voice. Please, Mr Clerk, will you continue.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: An Act respecting the establishment of an inquiry into the effect of the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act on employment and in particular employment opportunities for women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities, native peoples, youth and workers over the age of forty-five who have recently lost their jobs; on investment and in particular investment in new plants or the retrofit of existing plants; on entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial environment; on competitiveness and in particular the competitive tax position of Ontario companies; on productivity and in particular the potential for lost time due to strikes, lock-outs, layoffs and complete or partial plant closures; in the Agricultural Industry including Field Crop, Fruit and Vegetable Farms, in the Food Products and Processing Industries, in the Petrochemical Industry, in the Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Industry, in the Chemical Fertilizer Industry, in the Rubber Products Industry, in the Plastic Products Industry, in the Automotive Parts Industry, in the Truck Assembly Industry, in the Steel Drum Industry, in the Wire and Hardware Goods Industry, and in the Wooden Box and Pallet Industry, that operate in the Counties of Windsor, Essex, Lambton and Kent including the cities of Windsor, Chatham and Sarnia, and the towns of Amherstburg, Blenheim, Bothwell, Dresden, Forest, Grand Bend, Harrow, Leamington, Merlin, Oil Springs, Petrolia, Ridgetown, Thamesville, Thedford, Tilbury, Wallaceburg, Watford, Wheatley and Wyoming. First reading of the bill. Première lecture du projet de loi.

1610

The Acting Speaker: Introduction of bills?

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Perhaps I could make a few comments on the bill.

The Acting Speaker: Yes, by all means.

Mr Harris: This particular bill deals with those industries and related industries in and around the area of Windsor. After a year and a half or two years of intending to introduce labour relation changes, the government has continually refused to release any impact studies or any analysis of what impact proceeding with its legislation will have on various regions of this province and various industries of this province.

This bill is simply to ask the government -- and if it's carried by the Legislature, obviously to order the government -- to do what it should have done in the first place; that is, to carry out impact studies on the various businesses and industries, including agriculture and related industries, in and around the Windsor area and how it will impact on workers in those regions, not only those of the particular target groups we have mentioned, but indeed of all workers there, including those mentioned in the bill.

We think it is a very important piece of legislation -- urgent, quite frankly -- that should be dealt with quickly in second and third reading before there is any attempt to call second reading of and proceed with the Labour Relations Act amendments that were tabled today, so that all members of the House can truly understand what the impact will be of that piece of legislation.

TASK FORCE ON LABOUR RELATIONS ACT REVIEW AND INQUIRY ACT FOR THE LONDON REGION OF ONTARIO, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LE GROUPE DE TRAVAIL CHARGÉ D'ENQUÊTER SUR L'INCIDENCE DES MODIFICATIONS DE LA LOI SUR LESRELATIONS DE TRAVAIL DANS LA RÉGION DE LONDON EN ONTARIO

Mr Harris moved first reading of An Act respecting the establishment of an inquiry into the effect of the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act on employment and in particular employment opportunities for women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities, native peoples, youth and workers over the age of forty-five; on investment and in particular investment in new plants or the retrofit of existing plants; on entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial environment; on competitiveness and in particular the competitive tax position of Ontario companies; on productivity and in particular the potential for lost time due to strikes, lock-outs, layoffs and complete or partial plant closures; in the Agricultural Industry including Livestock Farms, Field Crop Farms, and Fruit and Vegetable Farms, in the Food and Food Processing Industry, in the Automobile Assembly Industry, in the Automotive Parts Industry, in the Transportation Equipment Industry, in the Fabricated Metal Products Industry, in the Rubber Products Industry, in the Machinery and Equipment Industry, in the Furniture and Fixtures Industry, in the Electronic Products Industry, and in the Telecommunication Equipment Industry that operate in the Counties of Middlesex, Elgin, Perth and Oxford including the cities of London, St Thomas, Woodstock and Stratford and the towns of Lucan, Strathroy, Ailsa Craig, Parkill, Listowel, Milverton, Mitchell, Hibbert, St Marys, Fullarton, Downie, Elma, Logan, Tavistock, Blandford-Blenheim, Ingersoll, Tillsonburg, Norwich, West Lorne, Port Stanley, Port Burwell, Aylmer, Yarmouth, Bayham, Dunwich and Malahide.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Mr Harris moves first reading of An Act respecting the establishment of an inquiry into the effect of the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act on employment and in particular employment opportunities for women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities, native peoples, youth and workers over the age of forty-five; on investment and in particular investment in new plants or the retrofit of existing plants; on entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial environment; on competitiveness and in particular the competitive tax position of Ontario companies; on productivity and in particular the potential for lost time due to strikes, lock-outs, layoffs and complete or partial plant closures; in the Agricultural Industry including Livestock Farms, Field Crop Farms, and Fruit and Vegetable Farms, in the Food and Food Processing Industry, in the Automobile Assembly Industry, in the Automotive Parts Industry, in the Transportation Equipment Industry, in the Fabricated Metal Products Industry, in the Rubber Products Industry, in the Machinery and Equipment Industry, in the Furniture and Fixtures Industry, in the Electronic Products Industry, and in the Telecommunication Equipment Industry that operate in the Counties of Middlesex, Elgin, Perth and Oxford including the cities of London, St Thomas, Woodstock and Stratford and the towns of Lucan, Strathroy, Ailsa Craig, Parkhill, Listowel, Milverton, Mitchell, Hibbert, St Marys, Fullarton, Downie, Elma, Logan, Tavistock, Blandford-Blenheim, Ingersoll, Tillsonburg, Norwich, West Lorne, Port Stanley, Port Burwell, Aylmer, Yarmouth, Bayham, Dunwich and Malahide.

Motion agreed to.

The Acting Speaker: Does the member for Nipissing have some short remarks pertaining to his bill?

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I do, Mr Speaker.

This piece of legislation deals with workers of various target groups specifically but all workers as well working in businesses and industries in and around the area of London. Similar to the previous bill I introduced today, it calls on the government to do an impact study of the proposed labour legislation changes that were introduced today on these workers and on these various industries.

I again suggest that it would be important that this bill be proceeded with expeditiously -- I know the House leader of the New Democratic Party is in the House now -- and that it be acted upon by the government, because the government has done no impact studies of its own on employment and on the effect of jobs and the competitiveness of these businesses. I urge the government to call these bills for second and third reading and to carry out the economic impact studies before it expects, particularly the members of its own party, to deal with second reading of the labour legislation changes, particularly in light of the new-found freedom that backbenchers now have for free votes on bills that they may in fact want to represent their constituents on.

1620

TASK FORCE ON LABOUR RELATIONS ACT REVIEW AND INQUIRY ACT FOR THE KITCHENER-WATERLOO REGION OF ONTARIO, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LE GROUPE DE TRAVAIL CHARGÉ D'ENQUÊTER SUR L'INCIDENCE DES MODIFICATIONS DE LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL DANS LA RÉGION DE KITCHENER-WATERLOO EN ONTARIO

Mr Harris moved first reading of An Act respecting the establishment of an inquiry into the effect of the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act on employment and in particular employment opportunities for women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities, native peoples, youth and workers over the age of forty-five; on investment and in particular investment in new plants or the retrofit of existing plants; on entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial environment; on competitiveness and in particular the competitive tax position of Ontario companies; on productivity and in particular the potential for lost time due to strikes, lock-outs, layoffs and complete or partial plant closures; in the Agricultural Industry including Livestock Farms, Field Crops, Fruit Crop Farms, Fruit and Vegetable Farms and other Horticultural Specialities; in the Quarry and Sand Pit Industry; in the Rubber Products Industries and including the Tire and Tubing Industry, and the Rubber Hose and Belting Industry; the Food Products and Processing Industries; the Beverage Industries including the Soft Drink Industry, the Distillery Industry, Brewery Products Industry; the Leather and Allied Products Industry including Leather Tanneries, the Footwear Industry, and the Luggage, Purse and Handbag Industry; the Textile Products Industries including the Carpet, Mat and Rug Industry, the Canvas and Related Products Industry, the Household Products of Textile Materials Industry, and the Tire Cord Fabric Industry; the Sweater Industry; the Furniture and Fixtures Industries including the Wooden Household Furniture Industry, the Upholstered Household Furniture Industry, the Office Furniture Industry, the Bed Spring and Mattress Industry, and the Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Furniture and Fixture Industry; the Printing, Publishing and Allied Industries including the Commercial Printing Industry, the Business Form Industry, the Platemaking Typesetting and Binding Industry, the Book Publishing Industry and the Newspaper, Magazine and Periodical Combined Publishing and Printing Industry; and the Electrical and Electronic Products Industries including the Small Electrical Appliance Industry, the Major Appliance Industry, the Lighting Fixture Industry, the Electric Lamp and Shade Industry, the Record Player, Radio and Television Industry, the Telecommunication Equipment Industry, the Electronic Parts and Components Industry, the Electric Computing and Peripheral Equipment Industry, the Electronic Office, Store and Business Machine Industry; that operate in the Regions and Counties of Waterloo, Wellington including the cities and towns of Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge, Elmira, Wellesley, Harriston, Mount Forest, Arthur, Elora, Fergus, Guelph, Palmerston, Puslinch, West Luther and Erin.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Mr Harris moves first reading of An Act respecting the establishment of an inquiry into the effect of the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act on employment and in particular employment opportunities for women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities, native peoples, youth and workers over the age of forty-five; on investment and in particular investment in new plants or the retrofit of existing plants; on entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial environment; on competitiveness and in particular the competitive tax position of Ontario companies; on productivity and in particular the potential for lost time due to strikes, lock-outs, layoffs and complete or partial plant closures; in the Agricultural Industry including Livestock Farms, Field Crops, Fruit Crop Farms, Fruit and Vegetable Farms and other Horticultural Specialities; in the Quarry and Sand Pit Industry; in the Rubber Products Industries and including the Tire and Tubing Industry, and the Rubber Hose and Belting Industry; the Food Products and Processing Industries; the Beverage Industries including the Soft Drink Industry, the Distillery Industry, Brewery Products Industry; the Leather and Allied Products Industry including Leather Tanneries, the Footwear Industry, and the Luggage, Purse and Handbag Industry; the Textile Products Industries including the Carpet, Mat and Rug Industry, the Canvas and Related Products Industry, the Household Products of Textile Materials Industry, and the Tire Cord Fabric Industry; the Sweater Industry; the Furniture and Fixtures Industries including the Wooden Household Furniture Industry, the Upholstered Household Furniture Industry, the Office Furniture Industry, the Bed Spring and Mattress Industry, and the Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Furniture and Fixture Industry; the Printing, Publishing and Allied Industries including the Commercial Printing Industry, the Business Form Industry, the Platemaking Typesetting and Binding Industry, the Book Publishing Industry and the Newspaper, Magazine and Periodical Combined Publishing and Printing Industry; and the Electrical and Electronic Products Industries including the Small Electrical Appliance Industry, the Major Appliance Industry, the Lighting Fixture Industry, the Electric Lamp and Shade Industry, the Record Player, Radio and Television Industry, the Telecommunication Equipment Industry, the Electronic Parts and Components Industry, the Electric Computing and Peripheral Equipment Industry, the Electronic Office, Store and Business Machine Industry; that operate in the Regions and Counties of Waterloo, Wellington including the cities and towns of Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge, Elmira, Wellesley, Harriston, Mount Forest, Arthur, Elora, Fergus, Guelph, Palmerston, Puslinch, West Luther and Erin.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Harris's motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

The Acting Speaker: Would the honourable member for Nipissing want to make a few short remarks on his bill?

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Yes, thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Similar to the two prior bills concerning the workers in the various industries and related industries including agriculture in and around the Windsor area and then the London area, this particular bill deals with those industries in and around the Kitchener-Waterloo region and related towns and communities. Again, I believe it very important for all of the members representing that region, and the members interested in those industries in that region will want, I'm sure, to know the impact of the labour relation changes on those businesses, on the job losses, on the potential for profit and loss in investment and success of these industries in that region.

Again I call on the government to quickly deal with second and third reading of this bill before it calls the Labour Relations Act. I suggest that if the government decides it does not want to act on those bills it could table, as we've been asking for the last two years, particularly in the last year and a half and extensively in the last six months, impact studies of the legislation that I think all members would want before voting on and debating the legislation. That's the purpose of the act. I hope we can deal with it expeditiously.

TASK FORCE ON LABOUR RELATIONS ACT REVIEW AND INQUIRY ACT FOR THE HAMILTON REGION, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LE GROUPE DE TRAVAIL CHARGÉ D'ENQUÊTER SUR L'INCIDENCE DES MODIFICATIONS DE LA LOI SUR LESRELATIONS DE TRAVAIL DANS LA RÉGION DE HAMILTON

Mr Harris moved first reading of An Act respecting the establishment of an inquiry into the effect of the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act on employment and in particular employment opportunities for women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities, native peoples, youth and workers over the age of forty-five; on investment and in particular investment in new plants or the retrofit of existing plants; on entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial environment; on competitiveness and in particular the competitive tax position of Ontario companies; on productivity and in particular the potential for lost time due to strikes, lock-outs, layoffs and complete or partial plant closures; in the Food Products and Processing Industry, in the Beverage Industries including the Soft Drink Industry, the Distillery Industry and the Brewery Products Industry, in the Automotive Parts Industry, in the Rubber Products Industry, in the Plastics Products Industry, in the Furniture and Fixtures Industry, in the Primary Metal Industries including Steel Foundaries, the Steel Pipe and Tube Industry, the Primary Smelting and Refining Industry and the Rolled, Cast and Extruded Metal Products Industry, in the Fabricated Metal Industry, in the Machinery and Equipment Industry, in the Electrical and Electronic Products Industry including the Small Electrical Appliance Industry, the Major Electrical Appliance Industry and the Electronic Parts and Components Industry that operate in the Regions and Counties of Hamilton-Wentworth and Halton and including the towns and cities of Hamilton, Flamborough, Ancaster, Dundas, Stoney Creek, Burlington, Halton Hills, Georgetown, Oakville and Milton.

1630

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Mr Harris moves first reading of An Act respecting the establishment of an inquiry into the effect of the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act on employment and in particular employment opportunities for women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities, native peoples, youth and workers over the age of forty-five; on investment and in particular investment in new plants or the retrofit of existing plants; on entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial environment; on competitiveness and in particular the competitive tax position of Ontario companies; on productivity and in particular the potential for lost time due to strikes, lock-outs, layoffs and complete or partial plant closures; in the Food Products and Processing Industry, in the Beverage Industries including the Soft Drink Industry, the Distillery Industry and the Brewery Products Industry, in the Automotive Parts Industry, in the Rubber Products Industry, in the Plastics Products Industry, in the Furniture and Fixtures Industry, in the Primary Metal Industries including Steel Foundaries, the Steel Pipe and Tube Industry, the Primary Smelting and Refining Industry and the Rolled, Cast and Extruded Metal Products Industry, in the Fabricated Metal Industry, in the Machinery and Equipment Industry, in the Electrical and Electronic Products Industry including the Small Electrical Appliance Industry, the Major Electrical Appliance Industry and the Electronic Parts and Components Industry that operate in the Regions and Counties of Hamilton-Wentworth and Halton and including the towns and cities of Hamilton, Flamborough, Ancaster, Dundas, Stoney Creek, Burlington, Halton Hills, Georgetown, Oakville and Milton.

Motion agreed to.

The Acting Speaker: Would the honourable member for Nipissing have a few short remarks to introduce his bill?

Mr Harris: This bill, as we begin to move east across southern Ontario, deals with those businesses and industries in and around the Hamilton region. Specifically, it calls upon the government to again do an impact study of the labour relations changes on the specific target groups of employees mentioned in the bill and indeed all employees, particularly on those industries in and around the Hamilton region. Again, I call on the government to call this bill for second and third reading and to carry out the impact study before proceeding with debate on second reading of the labour relations changes.

I think this one in particular is most important, because for the next three years and probably never for ever thereafter the Hamilton region and six ridings thereof are represented by members of the New Democratic Party. I know that with their new-found freedom, and now catching up to our party on actually allowing a free vote on a significant piece of legislation, those six members, one of whom is present here at this particular time in the gallery, will want to have all that information before they proceed with a piece of legislation that may impact very negatively on the jobs and the future jobs and prospects for jobs in and around the Hamilton region.

In the absence again of the government doing any impact studies on those industries in and around this region, this particular piece of legislation calls on the government to do that. I would encourage the New Democratic Party to proceed as quickly as possible so that we do not delay unduly consideration of second reading of the Ontario labour relations bill.

TASK FORCE ON LABOUR RELATIONS ACT REVIEW AND INQUIRY ACT FOR THE OTTAWA VALLEY REGION OF ONTARIO, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LE GROUPE DE TRAVAIL CHARGÉ D'ENQUÊTER SUR L'INCIDENCE DES MODIFICATIONS DE LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL DANS LA RÉGION ONTARIENNE DE LA VALLÉE DE L'OUTAOUAIS

Mr Harris moved first reading of An Act respecting the establishment of an inquiry into the effect of the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act on employment and in particular employment opportunities for women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities, native peoples, youth and workers over the age of forty-five; on investment and in particular investment in new plants or the retrofit of existing plants; on entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial environment; on competitiveness and in particular the competitive tax position of Ontario companies; on productivity and in particular the potential for lost time due to strikes, lock-outs, layoffs and complete or partial plant closures; in the Food and Food Processing Industry, in the Furniture and Fixtures Industry, in the Machinery Machinery and Equipment Industry, in the Printing and Allied Publishing Industries including the Commercial Printing Industry, the Business Forms Industry, the Platemaking, Typesetting and Binding Industry, and the Newspapaer, Magazine and Peridical Industry, in the Fabricated Metal Products Industry, in the Electrical and Electronic Products Industry including the Small Electrical Appliance Industry, the Ligthing Fixture Industry, the Telecommunication Equipment Industry, the Electronic Parts Industry, the Electronic Computing and Peripheral Equipment Industry, the Electronic Office, Store and Business Machine Industry, in the Food, Beverage and Drug Retail Industries, and in the Tourism Industry including the Hotel and Restaurant Industry that operate in the Ottawa Valley Region including the Counties and Regions of Prescott and Russel, Ottawa-Carleton, Lanark and Renfrew and including the cities and towns of L'Original, Hawkesbury, Alfred, Rockland, Casselman, Vankleek Hill, Vanier, Nepean, Kanata, Almonte, Perth, Darling, Lanark, Deep Rover, Chalk River, Petawawa, Pembroke, Hagarty Killaloe Station, Barrys Bay, Combermere, Dacre, Cobden, and Ottawa.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Will the honourable member send up his bill, please.

Mr Harris moves first reading of An Act respecting the establishment of an inquiry into the effect of the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act on employment and in particular employment opportunities for women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities, native peoples, youth and workers over the age offorty-five; on investment and in particular investment in new plants or the retrofit of existing plants; on entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial environment; on competitiveness and in particular the competitive tax position of Ontario companies; on productivity and in particular the potential for lost time due to strikes, lock-outs, layoffs and complete or partial plant closures; in the Food and Food Processing Industry, in the Furniture and Fixtures Industry, in the Machinery Machinery and Equipment Industry, in the Printing and Allied Publishing Industries including the Commercial Printing Industry, the Business Forms Industry, the Platemaking, Typesetting and Binding Industry, and the Newspapaer, Magazine and Peridical Industry, in the Fabricated Metal Products Industry, in the Electrical and Electronic Products Industry including the Small Electrical Appliance Industry, the Ligthing Fixture Industry, the Telecommunication Equipment Industry, the Electronic Parts Industry, the Electronic Computing and Peripheral Equipment Industry, the Electronic Office, Store and Business Machine Industry, in the Food, Beverage and Drug Retail Industries, and in the Tourism Industry including the Hotel and Restaurant Industry that operate in the Ottawa Valley Region including the Counties and Regions of Prescott and Russel, Ottawa-Carleton, Lanark and Renfrew and including the cities and towns of L'Original, Hawksbury, Alfred, Rockland, Casselman, Vankleek Hill, Vanier, Nepean, Kanata, Almonte, Perth, Darling, Lanark, Deep Rover, Chalk River, Petawawa, Pembroke, Hagarty Killaloe Station, Barrys Bay, Combermere, Dacre, Cobden, and Ottawa.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Harris's motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

1640

The Acting Speaker: Would the honourable member for Nipissing have some brief comments on his bill?

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): This bill is very similar to other bills that I've introduced today, but industry-specific in and around Ottawa and the Ottawa Valley region. I know of interest to members is that my riding is at the very north end of the Ottawa Valley up in Nipissing.

This bill calls upon the government to do an economic impact study of the Labour Relations Act changes specific to this region and industries in this region and, of course, to all workers, but indeed specifically to the target groups mentioned in the bill.

Again, I call on the government to proceed with this bill expeditiously, to call it for second and third reading, to enact a study so that indeed all members of the Legislature, particularly those in and around the Ottawa Valley and the Ottawa region, may know of the impact of the piece of legislation before they are called upon to debate and to vote on it.

As we have been calling on the government for the past two years and specifically since it's taken office and intensely for the last six months to do these economic impact studies, I would hope that it would want to move quickly on this so as not to delay unduly the consideration of the bill to consider changes to the Labour Relations Act.

With my apologies to Killaloe Station for mispronunciation at the start, that indeed is the intent of this particular bill.

TASK FORCE ON LABOUR RELATIONS ACT REVIEW AND INQUIRY ACT FOR THE NIAGARA PENINSULA OF ONTARIO, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LE GROUPE DE TRAVAIL CHARGÉ D'ENQUÊTER SUR L'INCIDENCE DES MODIFICATIONS DE LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL DANS LA PÉNINSULE ONTARIENNE DU NIAGARA

Mr Harris moved first reading of An Act respecting the establishment of an inquiry into the effect of the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act on employment and in particular employment opportunities for women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities, native peoples, youth and workers over the age of forty-five; on investment and in particular investment in new plants or the retrofit of existing plants; on entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial environment; on competitiveness and in particular the competitive tax position of Ontario companies; on productivity and in particular the potential for lost time due to strikes, lock-outs, layoffs and complete or partial plant closures; in the Agricultural industry including Field Crop Farms, Fruit and Vegetable Farms and other Horticultural Specialities; the Wine Industry; the Tobacco Products Industry; the Food, Beverage and Drug Retail Industries including Grocery stores, Specialty Food Stores, Liquor Stores, Wine Stores, Beer Stores, Pharmacies and Patent Medicine and Toiletries; the Accommodation, Food and Beverage Service Industries including Hotels, Motels and Tourist Courts, Lodging Houses and Residential Clubs, Camping Grounds and Travel Trailer Parks, and Recreation and Vacation Camps, Restaurants, Take-out Food Services, Caterers, and Taverns, Bars and Night Clubs; Tourism and Hospitality; that operate in the Regions and Counties of Niagara and Haldimand-Norfolk including the cities and town of Niagara Falls, Welland, Niagara-on-the-Lake, St Catharines, Grimsby, Fort Erie, Thorold, Hagersville, Caledonia, Port Maitland, Port Dover, Waterford, Port Rowan and Delhi.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Mr Harris moves first reading of An Act respecting the establishment of an inquiry into the effect of the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act on employment and in particular employment opportunities for women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities, native peoples, youth and workers over the age of forty-five; on investment and in particular investment in new plants or the retrofit of existing plants; on entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial environment; on competitiveness and in particular the competitive tax position of Ontario companies; on productivity and in particular the potential for lost time due to strikes, lock-outs, layoffs and complete or partial plant closures; in the Agricultural industry including Field Crop Farms, Fruit and Vegetable Farms and other Horticultural Specialities; the Wine Industry; the Tobacco Products Industry; the Food, Beverage and Drug Retail Industries including Grocery stores, Specialty Food Stores, Liquor Stores, Wine Stores, Beer Stores, Pharmacies and Patent Medicine and Toiletries; the Accommodation, Food and Beverage Service Industries including Hotels, Motels and Tourist Courts, Lodging Houses and Residential Clubs, Camping Grounds and Travel Trailer Parks, and Recreation and Vacation Camps, Restaurants, Take-out Food Services, Caterers, and Taverns, Bars and Night Clubs; Tourism and Hospitality; that operate in the Regions and Counties of Niagara and Haldimand-Norfolk including the cities and town of Niagara Falls, Welland, Niagara-on-the-Lake, St Catharines, Grimsby, Fort Erie, Thorold, Hagersville, Caledonia, Port Maitland, Port Dover, Waterford, Port Rowan and Delhi.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Harris's motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know that you'll rule as to whether or not this is a proper point of order. I'm not quite sure, but please bear with me. There's a class of youngsters up there in the visitors' gallery who suffered a hot bus ride to get here, seeking some respite from the boredom of the classroom. Perhaps the Speaker could encourage more excitement and enthusiasm here so as not to disappoint these young people who came to see democracy at work.

The Acting Speaker: It's not a point of order; it's a point of view.

1650

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I wonder, Mr Speaker, if I could make a few brief comments on the bill.

The Acting Speaker: Yes, I'm sorry.

Mr Harris: I do wish to make a few brief comments on this bill, particularly for the enlightenment of members of the House, for the member for Welland-Thorold who is here and whose region the bill pertains to and indeed for all observers, particularly the class from Welland-Thorold that is here. I think it's important that they, as well as the member for Welland-Thorold, understand that this bill calls upon the government to do an impact study, an inquiry if you like, into the effects of the Labour Relations Act changes. It's to fill in a piece of information that we think is vital for all members to have.

Before dealing with the Labour Relations Act, we think members would want to know the impact of the bill on employment opportunities in and around the Niagara Peninsula, particularly on those industries in and around that region. Given that the members of the New Democratic Party have been given the new-found freedom of a free vote on a significant piece of legislation just yesterday, I know they, and in particular the member for Welland-Thorold, would want to know what impact this piece of legislation will have upon the employees and future jobs of those in his riding and related ridings in the Niagara Peninsula.

I would encourage the government to proceed as expeditiously as it can to call second and third reading of this particular bill and the other related bills I'm introducing today, so that we may all know, 130 of us from the various regions of this province, the impact of the Ontario Labour Relations Act proposed changes before we deal with that at second reading. Then of course we will not see any undue delay in the consideration of second reading of the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

TASK FORCE ON LABOUR RELATIONS ACT REVIEW AND INQUIRY ACT FOR THE NORTH SHORE REGION OF ONTARIO, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LE GROUPE DE TRAVAIL CHARGÉ D'ENQUÊTER SUR L'INCIDENCE DES MODIFICATIONS DE LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL DANS LA REGION DE LA RIVÉ NORD DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Harris moved first reading of An Act respecting the establishment of an inquiry into the effect of the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act on employment and in particular employment opportunities for women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities, native peoples, youth and workers over the age of forty-five; on investment and in particular investment in new plants or the retrofit of existing plants; on entrepreneurs, on the entrepreneurial environment; on competitiveness and in particular the competitive tax position of Ontario companies; on productivity and in particular the potential for lost time due to strikes, lock-outs, layoffs and complete or partial plant closures; in the Rubber Products Industry including the Tire and Tube Industry, the Automotive Vehicles Parts and Accessories Industries that operate in the North Shore region including the regions and counties of Durham, Northumberland, including the cities and towns of Ajax, Whitby, Oshawa, Pickering, Port Perry, Bowmanville, Newcastle, Beaverton, Port Hope, Cobourg, Colborne, Brighton, Hastings, Campbellford and Frankford.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Mr Harris moves first reading of An Act respecting the establishment of an inquiry into the effect of the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act on employment and in particular employment opportunities for women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities, native peoples, youth and workers over the age of forty-five; on investment and in particular investment in new plants or the retrofit of existing plants; on entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial environment, on competitiveness and in particular the competitive tax position of Ontario companies; on productivity and in particular the potential for lost time due to strikes, lock-outs, layoffs and complete or partial plant closures; in the Rubber Products Industry, including the Tire and Tube Industry; the Automotive Vehicles, Parts and Accessories Industries; that operate in the North Shore Region including the Regions and Counties of Durham, Northumberland including the cities and town of Ajax, Whitby, Oshawa, Pickering, Port Perry, Bowmanville, Newcastle, Bearverton, Port Hope, Cobourg, Colborne, Brighton, Hastings, Campbellford and Frankford.

Motion agreed to.

The Acting Speaker: Would the honourable member who introduced the bill, the member for Nipissing, have a few short remarks on his bill?

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): This bill is similar to other bills and the companion bills today, except that of course it deals with the regions in the north shore region in and around the counties of Durham and Northumberland and with those particular industries there. It calls upon the government to do an impact study into the effects that the changes introduced today to the Ontario Labour Relations Act might have on job opportunities and prospects and layoffs of workers and potential workers in and around this region and on those industries.

We would think that the members of all three parties who represent those regions would certainly want to have access to this information. We were most disappointed, of course, that it wasn't forthcoming by the government with the introduction of the bill, something we had been calling for for a considerable period of time.

Again I would urge the House leader for the New Democratic Party, who is here, to call second and third reading of these bills as expeditiously as possible. I'm sure the House leaders for all parties would agree to deal with these bills, perhaps in unison, so that we could perhaps even Monday have second and third reading of the whole shooting match. That way we could get on with the studies and we could have that information more expeditiously, and perhaps then, if we could get the studies completed, we could deal with second reading of the Ontario Labour Relations Act, perhaps before the end of this year.

That's the purpose of the bill, and I hope the government will move quickly on it.

TASK FORCE ON LABOUR RELATIONS ACT REVIEW AND INQUIRY ACT FOR THE CENTRAL LAKES REGION, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LE GROUPE DE TRAVAIL CHARGÉ D'ENQUÊTER SUR L'INCIDENCE DES MODIFICATIONS DE LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL DANS LA RÉGION CENTRALE DES LACS

Mr Harris moved first reading of An Act respecting the establishment of an inquiry into the effect of the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act on employment and in particular employment opportunities for women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities, native people, youth and workers over the age of forty-five; on investment and in particular investment in new plants or the retrofit of existing plants; on entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial environment, on competitiveness and in particular the competitive tax position of Ontario companies; on productivity and in particular the potential for lost time due to strikes, lock-outs, layoffs and complete or partial plant closures in the Electrical and Electronic Products Industries including the Small Electrical Appliance Industry, the Major Appliance Industry, the Lighting Fixture Industry, the Electric Lamp and Shade Industry, the Record Player, Radio and Television Industry, the Telecommunication Equipment Industry, the Electronic Parts and Components Industry, the Electric Computing and Peripheral Equipment Industry, the Electronic Office, Store and Business Machine Industry; the Boat Building and Repair Industry; the Metal Dies, Moulds and Patterns Industry; the Boat Building and Repair Industry; and the Food Products and Processing Industry; that operate in the Central Lakes Region, including the Counties and Regions of Peterborough, Victoria and Hastings and including the cities and towns of Peterborough, Havelock, Lakefield, Lindsay, Fenelon Falls, Bobcaygeon, Nephton, Stirling, Tweed, Madoc, Marmora, Coe Hill, Bancroft, Maynooth and Wollaston.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Mr Harris moves first reading of An Act respecting the establishment of an inquiry into the effect of the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act on employment and in particular employment opportunities for women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities, native peoples, youth and workers over the age of forty-five; on investment and in particular investment in new plants or the retrofit of existing plants; on entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial environment; on competitiveness and in particular the competitive tax position of Ontario companies; on productivity and in particular the potential for lost time due to strikes, lock-outs, layoffs and complete or partial plant closures; in the and the Electrical and Electronic Products Industries including the Small Electrical Appliance Industry, the Major Appliance Industry, the Lighting Fixture Industry, the Electric Lamp and Shade Industry, the Record Player, Radio and Television Industry, the Telecommunication Equipment Industry, the Electronic Parts and Components Industry, the Electric Computing and Peripheral Equipment Industry, the Electronic Office, Store and Business Machine Industry; the Boat Building and Repair Industry; the Metal Dies, Moulds and Patterns Industry; the Boat Building and Repair Industry; and the Food Products and Processing Industry; that operate in the Central Lakes Region, including the Counties and Regions of Peterborough, Victoria and Hastings, and including the cities and towns of Peterborough, Havelock, Lakefield, Lindsay, Fenelon Falls, Bobcaygeon, Nephton, Stirling, Tweed, Madoc, Marmora, Coe Hill, Bancroft, Maynooth and Wollaston.

1709

The House divided on Mr Harris's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 64

Allen, Arnott, Bisson, Boyd, Callahan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Cunningham, Dadamo, Duignan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hansen, Harnick, Harrington, Harris, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jordan, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin,

Mahoney, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Mathyssen, Miclash, Morrow, Murdoch, B., North, O'Connor, O'Neil, H., Owens, Perruzza, Phillips, G., Pilkey, Rizzo, Ruprecht, Sola, Sterling, Sullivan, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Tilson, Turnbull, Ward, B., Ward, M., Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson, F., Wilson, J., Wood, Ziemba.

Nays -- 0

The Acting Speaker: Does the honourable member for Nipissing have a few short remarks?

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I do, Mr Speaker, and I appreciate the direction as to time.

This bill, similar to the companion piece of legislation I introduced earlier, deals with those industries and businesses and those employees, potential employees and workers in and around the region of Peterborough. I was in Peterborough today and last night I met with the chamber of commerce and with the county council which expressed strong concerns and wanted to know the impact of the Ontario labour relations changes.

This particular piece of legislation calls on the government to give us a study of the impact of the labour relations bill, what that impact will be on the categories of workers -- indeed all workers, not just the categories mentioned -- of native peoples, racial minorities, women, persons with disabilities, youth and workers over the age of 45, and on the competitiveness of those companies.

I know all members of the Legislature will want this particular piece of legislation, along with the companion bills, dealt with before second reading of the Ontario Labour Relations Act is called. And so again I would call on the government to call this bill and deal with it quickly. Let's have second and third reading. Let's get the impact studies done so that we may deal more expeditiously, perhaps even before the end of this year, with second reading of the Ontario Labour Relations Act amendments.

TASK FORCE ON LABOUR RELATIONS ACT REVIEW AND INQUIRY ACT FOR THE SIMCOE REGION OF ONTARIO, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LE GROUPE DE TRAVAIL CHARGÉ D'ENQUÊTER SUR L'INCIDENCE DES MODIFICATIONS DE LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL DANS LA RÉGION ONTARIENNE DE SIMCOE

Mr Harris moved first reading of An Act respecting the establishment of an inquiry into the effect of the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act on employment and in particular employment opportunities for women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities, native peoples, youth and workers over the age of forty-five; on investment and in particular investment in new plants or the retrofit of existing plants; on entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial environment; on competitiveness and in particular the competitive tax position of Ontario companies; on productivity and in particular the potential for lost time due to strikes, lock-outs, layoffs and complete or partial plant closures; in the Food, Beverage and Drug Retail Industries including Grocery Stores, Specialty Food Stores, Liquor Stores, Wine Stores, Beer Stores, Pharmacies and Patent Medicine and Toiletries; the Accommodation, Food and Beverage Service Industries including Hotels, Motels, and Tourist Courts, Lodging Houses and Residential Clubs, Camping Grounds and Travel Trailer Parks, and Recreation and Vacation Camps, Restaurants, Take-out Food Services, Caterers, and Taverns, Bars and Night Clubs; Tourism and Hospitality; the Retail Service Industries including Book and Stationary Stores, Florist Shops, Lawn and Garden Centres, Hardware Stores, Paint Glass and Wallpaper Stores, Sporting Goods Stores, Bicycle Shops, Musical Instrument Stores, Record and Tape Stores, Jewellery Stores, Watch and Jewellery Repair Shops, Camera and Photographic Supply Stores, Toy and Hobby Shops, Gift, Novelty and Souvenir Shops, Second-Hand Merchandise Stores, Opticians Shops, Art Galleries and Artist Supply Stores, Luggage and Leather Goods Stores and Monument and Tombstone Dealers; in the Agricultural Industry including Livestock Farms, Field Crops, Fruit Crop Farms, Fruit and Vegetable Farms and other Horticultural Specialties; the Aircraft Parts Industry; the Motor Vehicle Industry; that operate in the Simcoe Region including the Counties and Regions of Simcoe, Grey and Dufferin and including the cities and towns of Wiarton, Owen Sound, Markdale, Durham, Dundalk, Hanover, Meaford, Shelburne, Collingwood, Stayner, Creemore, Alliston, Cookstown, Wasaga Beach, Elmvale, Penetanguishene, Midland, Washago, Orillia, Barrie and Bradford.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Mr Harris has moved An Act respecting the establishment of an inquiry --

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Dispense.

The Acting Speaker: Dispense? Agreed? Agreed.

My understanding from the Clerk's table is we cannot dispense a reading by the Speaker. I will have to continue. Please bear with me.

Mr Harris moves An Act respecting the establishment of an inquiry into the effect of the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act on employment and in particular employment opportunities for women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities, native peoples, youth and workers over the age of forty-five; on investment and in particular investment in new plants or the retrofit of existing plants; on entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial environment; on competitiveness and in particular the competitive tax position of Ontario companies; on productivity and in particular the potential for lost time due to strikes, lock-outs, layoffs and complete or partial plant closures; in the Food, Beverage and Drug Retail Industries including Grocery Stores, Specialty Food Stores, Liquor Stores, Wine Stores, Beer Stores, Pharmacies and Patent Medicine and Toiletries; the Accommodation, Food and Beverage Service Industries including Hotels, Motels and Tourist Courts, Lodging Houses and Residential Clubs, Camping Grounds and Travel Trailer Parks, and Recreation and Vacation Camps, Restaurants, Take-out Food Services, Caterers, and Taverns, Bars and Night Clubs; Tourism and Hospitality; the Retail Service Industries including Book and Stationary Stores, Florist Shops, Lawn and Garden Centres, Hardware Stores, Paint Glass and Wallpaper Stores, Sporting Goods Stores, Bicycle Shops, Musical Instrument Stores, Record and Tape Stores, Jewellery Stores, Watch and Jewellery Repair Shops, Camera and Photographic Supply Stores, Toy and Hobby Shops, Gift, Novelty and Souvenir Shops, Second-Hand Merchandise Stores, Opticians Shops, Art Galleries and Artist Supply Stores, Luggage and Leather Goods Stores and Monument and Tombstone Dealers; in the Agriculture Industry including Livestock Farms, Field Crops, Fruit Crop Farms, Fruit and Vegetable Farms and other Horticultural Specialities; the Aircraft Parts Industry; the Motor Vehicle Industry; that operate in the Simcoe Region including the Counties and Regions of Simcoe, Grey and Dufferin and including the cities and towns of Wiarton, Owen Sound, Markdale, Durham, Dundalk, Hanover, Meaford, Shelburne, Collingwood, Stayner, Creemore, Alliston, Cookstown, Wasaga Beach, Elmvale, Penetanguishene, Midland, Washago, Orillia, Barrie and Bradford.

Motion agreed to.

The Acting Speaker: Would the honourable member for Nipissing have some brief opening remarks to introduce his bill?

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I do. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Let me say that this bill deals, of course, with the region and communities I mentioned and, in addition to that, two I did not: Lafontaine and Thunder Beach. I want those residents to know we are concerned with the businesses and industries there as well.

It deals with the impact of the Ontario Labour Relations Act and what it will have on employment and employment opportunities, jobs in industries and the competitiveness of those industries in and around the Simcoe region.

Again I would ask the government House leader to call this bill along with its sister pieces of legislation and to expeditiously have second and third reading and the impact studies done so that all members of the House will have all the facts and information they need, particularly those members in the Simcoe region but, indeed, all 130 members and particularly the members of the New Democratic Party who, with their now new-found freedom, being given free vote on a significant piece of legislation, will want to know more information as opposed to just parroting what they're told to do.

Given that the members of my caucus for the last two years have had the right to free votes, that now the Liberal Party may even do that too and that now the New Democratic caucus members appear to be coming into the real world, they'll want to know the facts before they deal with second reading of the Labour Relations Act. If we can get these economic studies done and these bills passed, perhaps then we can deal with second reading of the Ontario Labour Relations Act some time before the end of 1992 and not unduly delay the bill.

The Acting Speaker: We proceed with introduction of bills. The honourable member for Nipissing.

Mr Harris: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you very much to the member for Welland for acknowledging this bill. I know it's one he'll want to support.

1720

TASK FORCE ON LABOUR RELATIONS ACT REVIEW AND INQUIRY ACT FOR THE PRINCE EDWARD REGION OF ONTARIO, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LE GROUPE DE TRAVAIL CHARGÉ D'ENQUÊTER SUR L'INCIDENCE DES MODIFICATIONS DE LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL DANS LA RÉGION DE PRINCE EDWARD

Mr Harris moved first reading of An Act respecting the establishment of an inquiry into the effect of the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act on employment and in particular employment opportunities for women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities, native peoples, youth and workers over the age of forty-five; on investment and in particular investment in new plants or the retrofit of existing plants; on entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial environment; on competitiveness and in particular the competitive tax position of Ontario companies; on productivity and in particular the potential for lost time due to strikes, lock-outs, layoffs and complete or partial plant closures; the Food, Beverage and Drug Retail Industries including Grocery stores, Specialty Food Stores, Liquor Stores, Wine Stores, Beer Stores, Pharmacies and Patent Medicine and Toiletries; the Accommodation, Food and Beverage Service Industries including Hotels, Motels and Tourist Courts, Lodging Houses and Residential Clubs, Camping Grounds and Travel Trailer Parks, and Recreation and Vacation Camps, Restaurants, Take-out Food Services, Caterers, and Taverns, Bars and Night Clubs; Tourism and Hospitality; the Retail Service Industries including Book and Stationary Stores, Florist Shops, Lawn and Garden Centres, Hardware Stores, Paint Glass and Wallpaper Stores, Sporting Goods Stores, Bicycle Shops, Musical Instrument Stores, Record and Tape Stores, Jewellery Stores, Watch and Jewellery Repair Shops, Camera and Photographic Supply Stores, Toy and Hobby Shops, Gift, Novelty and Souvenir Shops, Second-Hand Merchandise Stores, Opticians Shops, Art Galleries and Artist Supply Stores, Luggage and Leather Goods Stores and Monument and Tombstone Dealers; in the Agricultural Industry including Livestock Farms, Field Crops, Fruit Crop Farms, Fruit and Vegetable Farms and other Horticultural Specialities; that operate in the Prince Edward Region including the Counties and Regions of Lennox and Addington, Hastings and Northumberland and including the cities and towns of Colborne, Brighton, Trenton, Napanee, Belleville, Wellington, Picton, Deseronto and Debign.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): That's the first time Debign has been mentioned in the Legislature of the Ontario House. Even though I had difficulty pronouncing it, I want the people of Debign to know that I am the first person I know of to mention them in the Legislature.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Mr Harris moves first reading of An Act respecting the establishment of an inquiry into the effect of the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act on employment and in particular employment opportunities for women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities, native peoples, youth and workers over the age of forty-five; on investment and in particular investment in new plants or the retrofit of existing plants; on entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial environment; on competitiveness and in particular the competitive tax position of Ontario companies; on productivity and in particular the potential for lost time due to strikes, lock-outs, layoffs and complete or partial plant closures; the Food, Beverage and Drug Retail Industries including Grocery stores, Specialty Food Stores, Liquor Stores, Wine Stores, Beer Stores, Pharmacies and Patent Medicine and Toiletries; the Accommodation, Food and Beverage Service Industries including Hotels, Motels and Tourist Courts, Lodging Houses and Residential Clubs, Camping Grounds and Travel Trailer Parks, and Recreation and Vacation Camps, Restaurants, Take-out Food Services, Caterers, and Taverns, Bars and Night Clubs; Tourism and Hospitality; the Retail Service Industries including Book and Stationary Stores, Florist Shops, Lawn and Garden Centres, Hardware Stores, Paint Glass and Wallpaper Stores, Sporting Goods Stores, Bicycle Shops, Musical Instrument Stores, Record and Tape Stores, Jewellery Stores, Watch and Jewellery Repair Shops, Camera and Photographic Supply Stores, Toy and Hobby Shops, Gift, Novelty and Souvenir Shops, Second-Hand Merchandise Stores, Opticians Shops, Art Galleries and Artist Supply Stores, Luggage and Leather Goods Stores and Monument and Tombstone Dealers; in the Agricultural Industry including Livestock Farms, Field Crops, Fruit Crop Farms, Fruit and Vegetable Farms and other Horticultural Specialities; that operate in the Prince Edward Region including the Counties and Regions of Lennox and Addington, Hastings and Northumberland and including the cities and towns of Colborne, Brighton, Trenton, Napanee, Belleville, Wellington, Picton, Deseronto and Debign.

Motion agreed to.

The Acting Speaker: Does the honourable member for Nipissing have a few opening remarks?

1730

Mr Harris: In brief, this bill, like its companion bills, deals with those industries, jobs and employment opportunities now and in the future and the competitiveness of those businesses and industries that are in and around the Prince Edward region.

Again, I hope that the House leader -- I know my House leader, and I hope the Liberal House leader, would concur in dealing with the bills as a package. Perhaps in that way we could move them all forward at the same time for second and third reading and then get on expeditiously with the study, as the bills call for, of the impact of the Labour Relations Act on those jobs of the target groups and indeed all employees in those industries in and around those areas.

I know that all members of the Legislature, particularly those of the New Democratic Party who have now been given freedom to vote in a free vote, will need to know more information. I recall the days when I was in a majority government and a part of that government. When the Premier of the day told me how to vote, that was it or you left and went home disgraced and never to return.

Of course, we've changed in that in our party for the last two years and now that the members of the New Democratic Party have been given a free vote opportunity on a major bill, I know they'll want to know more information before they exercise that right to reflect the viewpoints of their constituents, particularly those in and around the region of Prince Edward and in the companion bills, all 130 ridings.

If that can be done and the economic impact studies done, it would mean that if the government decides that it ever wishes to proceed with second reading of the Ontario Labour Relations Act, perhaps we could do so before the end of the year.

TASK FORCE ON LABOUR RELATIONS ACT REVIEW AND INQUIRY ACT FOR THE KINGSTON REGION OF ONTARIO, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LE GROUPE DE TRAVAIL CHARGÉ D'ENQUÊTER SUR L'INCIDENCE DES MODIFICATIONS DE LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL DANS LA RÉGION ONTARIENNE DE KINGSTON

Mr Sterling moved first reading of An Act respecting the establishment of an inquiry into the effect of the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act on employment and in particular employment opportunities for women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities, native peoples, youth and workers over the age of forty-five; on investment and in particular investment in new plants or the retrofit of existing plants; on entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial environment; on competitiveness and in particular the competitive tax position of Ontario companies; on productivity and in particular the potential for lost time due to strikes, lock-outs, layoffs and complete or partial plant closures; in the Foods Products and Processing Industries; in the Beverage Industries including the Soft Drink Industry, the Distillery Industry and the Brewery Products Industry, the Rubber Products Industry, the Plastic Products Industries, the Textile Products Industries, the Clothing Industries, the Furniture and Fixtures Industries, the Printing, Publishing and Allied Industries, the Primary Metal Industries including the Aluminum Rolling, Casting and Extruding Industry, the Transportation Equipment Industry including the Motor Vehicle Wheel and Brake Industry, the Electrical and Electronic Products Industries, the Structural Concrete Products Industry and the Ready-Mix Concrete Industry that operate in the Kingston region including the Counties and Regions of Leeds and Grenville and Frontenac and including the cities and towns of Kingston, Sharbot, Westport and Gananoque.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Mr Sterling moves first reading of An Act respecting the establishment of an inquiry into the effect of the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act on employment and in particular employment opportunities for women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities, native peoples, youth and workers over the age of forty-five; on investment and in particular investment in new plants or the retrofit of existing plants; on entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial environment; on competitiveness and in particular the competitive tax position of Ontario companies; on productivity and in particular the potential for lost time due to strikes, lock-outs, layoffs and complete or partial plant closures; in the Food Products and Processing Industries, in the Beverage Industries including the Soft Drink Industry, the Distillery Industry and the Brewery Products Industry, the Rubber Products Industry, the Plastic Products Industries, the Textile Products Industries, the Clothing Industries, the Furniture and Fixtures Industries, the Printing, Publishing, and Allied Industries, the Primary Metal Industries including the Aluminum Rolling, Casting and Extruding Industry, the Transportation Equipment Industry including the Motor Vehicle Wheel and Brake Industry, the Electrical and Electronic Products Industries, the Structural Concrete Products Industry and the Ready-Mix Concrete Industry that operate in the Kingston Region including the Counties and Regions of Leeds and Grenville and Frontenac and including the cities and towns of Kingston, Sharbot, Westport and Gananoque.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Sterling's motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

The Acting Table Clerk (Mr Franco Carrozza): This is a bill entitled An Act respecting the establishment of an inquiry into the effect of the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act --

The Acting Speaker: Dispense? Agreed?

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): No.

The Acting Speaker: No? I heard a negative. Please proceed.

The Acting Table Clerk: -- on employment and in particular employment opportunities for women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities, native peoples, youth and workers over the age of forty-five; on investment and in particular investment in new plants or the retrofit of existing plants; on entrepreneurs --

Interjections: Dispense.

The Acting Speaker: Dispense? Agreed.

Would Mr Sterling, the honourable member for Carleton, have some brief opening remarks on his bill?

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Yes, Mr Speaker. I'm going to keep them brief -- not short, but brief. In order that we may introduce bills with regard to other areas, this deals with one area in eastern Ontario which you are most familiar with. We are hurting in eastern Ontario. This legislation should not be implemented, the amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act, without full study about what it's going to do to eastern Ontario, and that's what this bill requires.

TASK FORCE ON LABOUR RELATIONS ACT REVIEW AND INQUIRY ACT FOR THE ST LAWRENCE REGION OF ONTARIO, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LE GROUPE DE TRAVAIL CHARGÉ D'ENQUÊTER SUR L'INCIDENCE DES MODIFICATIONS DE LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL DANS LA RÉGION ONTARIENNE DU SAINT-LAURENT

Mr Sterling moved An Act respecting the establishment of an inquiry into the effect of the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act on employment and in particular employment opportunities for women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities, native peoples, youth and workers over the age of forty-five; on investment and in particular investment in new plants or the retrofit of existing plants; on entrepreneurs and on the entrepreneurial environment; on competitiveness and in particular the competitive tax position of Ontario companies; on productivity and in particular the potential for lost time due to strikes, lock-outs, layoffs and complete or partial plant closures; in the Agricultural Industry including Livestock Farms, Field Crop Farms, Fruit and Vegetable Farms and Other Horticultural Specialties, in the Food and Food Processing Industries, in the Chemical Fertilizer and Fertilizer Materials Industry, in the Chemical and Chemical Products Industry, in the Plastic and Synthetic Resin Industry, in the Pharmaceutical and Medicine Industry, in the Paper and Allied Products Industry, in the Printing and Publishing Industry, in the Fabricated Metal Products Industry, in the Electrical and Electronic Products Industry including the Small Electrical Appliance Industry and the Television Industry, in the Wire and Hardware Goods Industry and in the Telecommunications Equipment Industry that operate in the St Lawrence Region including the Counties and Regions of and Leeds and Grenville, Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and including the cities and towns of Brockville, Prescott, Kemptville, Iroquois, Cardinal, Morrisburg, Winchester, Chesterville, Alexandria, Lancaster and Cornwall.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Mr Sterling moves first reading of An Act respecting the establishment of an inquiry into the effect of the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act on employment and in particular employment opportunities for women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities, native peoples, youth and workers over the age of forty-five; on investment and in particular investment in new plants or the retrofit of existing plants; on entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial environment; on competitiveness and in particular the competitive tax position of Ontario companies; on productivity and in particular the potential for lost time due to strikes, lock-outs, layoffs and complete or partial plant closures; in the Agricultural Industry including Livestock Farms, Field Crop Farms, Fruit and Vegetable Farms and Other Horticultural Specialties, in the Food and Food Processing Industries, in the Chemical Fertilizer and Fertilizer Materials Industry, in the Chemical and Chemical Products Industry, in the Plastic and Synthetic Resin Industry, in the Pharmaceutical and Medicine Industry, in the Paper and Allied Products Industry, in the Printing and Publishing Industry, in the Fabricated Metal Products Industry, in the Electrical and Electronic Products Industry including the Small Electrical Appliance Industry and the Television Industry, in the Wire and Hardware Goods Industry and in the Telecommunications Equipment Industry that operate in the St Lawrence Region including the Counties and Regions of and Leeds and Grenville, Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, and including the cities and towns of Brockville, Prescott, Kemptville, Iroquois, Cardinal, Morrisburg, Winchester, Chesterville, Alexandria, Lancaster and Cornwall.

Motion agreed to.

1740

The Acting Speaker: Does the honourable member for Carleton have some brief opening remarks on his bill?

Mr Sterling: In order to move things along in the Legislature, I would only like to associate my words on the previous bill with this bill.

TASK FORCE ON LABOUR RELATIONS ACT REVIEW AND INQUIRY ACT FOR THE CENTRAL ONTARIO REGION OF ONTARIO, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LE GROUPE DE TRAVAIL CHARGÉ D'ENQUÊTER SUR L'INCIDENCE DES MODIFICATIONS DE LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL DANS LA RÉGION DE L'ONTARIO CENTRAL

Mr Sterling moved first reading of An Act respecting the establishment of an inquiry into the effect of the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act on employment and in particular employment opportunities for women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities, native peoples, youth and workers over the age of forty-five; on investment and in particular investment in new plants or the retrofit of existing plants; on entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial environment; on competitiveness and in particular the competitive tax position of Ontario companies; on productivity and in particular the potential for lost time due to strikes, lock-outs, layoffs and complete or partial plant closures; the Food, Beverage and Drug Retail Industries including Grocery stores, Specialty Food Stores, Liquor Stores, Wine Stores, Beer Stores, Pharmacies and Patent Medicine and Toiletries; the Accommodation, Food and Beverage Service Industries including Hotels, Motels and Tourist Courts, Lodging Houses and Residential Clubs, Camping Grounds and Travel Trailer Parks, and Recreation and Vacation Camps, Restaurants, Take-out Food Services, Caterers, and Taverns, Bars and Night Clubs; Tourism and Hospitality; the Retail Service Industries including Book and Stationary Stores, Florist Shops, Lawn and Garden Centres, Hardware Stores, Paint Glass and Wallpaper Stores, Sporting Goods Stores, Bicycle Shops, Musical Instrument Stores, Record and Tape Stores, Jewellery Stores, Watch and Jewellery Repair Shops, Camera and Photographic Supply Stores, Toy and Hobby Shops, Gift, Novelty and Souvenir Shops, Second-Hand Merchandise Stores, Opticians Shops, Art Galleries and Artist Supply Stores, Luggage and Leather Goods Stores and Monument and Tombstone Dealers; that operate in central Ontario including the Counties and Regions of Muskoka and Parry Sound including the cities and towns of Powassan, Trout Creek, South River, Sundridge, Burk's Falls, Kearney, Emsdale, Sprucedale, Parry Sound, Nobel, McDougall, Britt, Byng, Loring, Novar, Haliburton, Gravenhurst, Bracebridge and Huntsville.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Mr Sterling moves first reading of An Act respecting the establishment of an inquiry into the effect of the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act on employment and in particular employment opportunities for women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities, native peoples, youth and workers over the age of forty-five; on investment and in particular investment in new plants or the retrofit of existing plants; on entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial environment; on competitiveness and in particular the competitive tax position of Ontario companies; on productivity and in particular the potential for lost time due to strikes, lock-outs, layoffs and complete or partial plant closures; the Food, Beverage and Drug Retail Industries including Grocery stores, Speciality Food Stores, Liquor Stores, Wine Stores, Beer Stores, Pharmacies and Patent Medicine and Toiletries; the Accommodation, Food and Beverage Service Industries including Hotels, Motels and Tourist Courts, Lodging Houses and Residential Clubs, Camping Grounds and Travel Trailer Parks, and Recreation and Vacation Camps, Restaurants, Take-out Food Services, Caterers, and Taverns, Bars and Night Clubs; Tourism and Hospitality; the Retail Service Industries including Book and Stationary Stores, Florist Shops, Lawn and Garden Centres, Hardware Stores, Paint Glass and Wallpaper Stores, Sporting Goods Stores, Bicycle Shops, Musical Instrument Stores, Record and Tape Stores, Jewellery Stores, Watch and Jewellery Repair Shops, Camera and Photographic Supply Stores, Toy and Hobby Shops, Gift, Novelty and Souvenir Shops, Second-Hand Merchandise Stores, Opticians Shops, Art Galleries and Artist Supply Stores, Luggage and Leather Goods Stores and Monument and Tombstone Dealers; that operate in the Central Ontario area including the Counties and Regions of Muskoka and Parry Sound including the cities and towns of Powassan, Trout Creek, South River, Sundridge, Burk's Falls, Kearney, Emsdale, Sprucedale, Parry Sound, Nobel, McDougall, Britt, Byng, Loring, Novar, Haliburton, Gravenhurst, Bracebridge and Huntsville.

Motion agreed to.

The Acting Speaker: Introduction of bills? The honourable government House leader.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): I move under rule 9(c) that the House sit past 6 pm.

Mr Sterling: Mr Speaker, I believe it was my opportunity to comment on the bill and you did not afford me that opportunity.

Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, the motion has been moved.

Mr Sterling: Mr Speaker, he did not have the floor.

The Acting Speaker: I've just been advised by the table that Mr Sterling does have a brief time to comment and then we will ask for introduction of further bills. I believe, with the indulgence of the House, that Mr Sterling does have brief comments to make on his most recently introduced bill and then we will proceed in rotation.

1750

Mr Sterling: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that. This bill, like the other bills, introduces --

Hon Mr Cooke: Explanatory notes, Mr Speaker?

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member is working on explanatory notes.

Mr Sterling: I am following the lead that was taken before with regard to government bills.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Mr Speaker, I'd like to know what bill we're speaking to.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. We're speaking to the most recently introduced bill. The honourable member for Carleton has the floor.

Mr Sterling: This bill, along with some of the other bills, has been introduced to force this government to undertake an inquiry into the effects of the very dramatic piece of legislation which was introduced earlier this afternoon -- that is, the Ontario Labour Relations Act. We have to be able to know what the effects of that legislation are before we can deal with it in a logical and reasonable fashion here in this Legislature this year. Mr Harris, our leader, has indicated on a number of occasions with regard to other areas that what we would like to --

The Acting Speaker: I would like the honourable member for Carleton to limit his comments to explanatory notes on the most recently introduced bill.

Mr Sterling: I will try to scope my comments as I've done with regard to other matters as well.

The bill is introduced particularly for the north-central area and deals mostly with the tourist industry which is so prevalent in the Haliburton-Muskoka area. We believe that, perhaps of all the areas in Ontario which need an inquiry before we carry on with this particular legislation, it is that area, because without the impact of this legislation being known we will have a tremendous number of tourist industries that will be forced to close down.

We certainly hope this Legislature will support these on first, second and third readings so that we can deal with this Ontario Labour Relations Act perhaps before the year is out.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Mr Speaker, I don't believe we have a quorum.

The Acting Speaker: I'm advised by the table that we do have a quorum.

Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, I move under rule 9(c) that the House sit past 6 o'clock.

1809

The House divided on Mr Cooke's motion that the House continue to sit beyond the normal adjournment hour, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes 55; nays 19.

[Report continues in volume B]