Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1001.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

LABOUR STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LES LOI CONCERNANT LE TRAVAIL

Mr Owens moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 82, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act and the Workers' Compensation Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur les normes d'emploi et la Loi sur les accidents du travail

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member has 10 minutes to make his presentation.

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): I may not utilize the entire 10 minutes, as this is a very simple issue that addresses some acute problems that workers who are parents and workers who are injured have been facing since time immemorial. The themes I want to address today are that the provision of good maternity leave benefits is good for business, that fairness and equality are good for business and that justice for injured workers is also good for business.

Section 1 of my bill addresses the issue of the amendment to the Employment Standards Act. What this bill will do is provide for the accrual of credit for the purposes of vacation time and sick time while parents are off on their maternity or parental leave or workers are on workers' compensation. Again, the issue of extending benefits to these people on maternity leave and/or workers' compensation is an issue of fairness and equality. The first part of my bill will deal with persons on maternity leave.

As a society we have an obligation to allow workers to fully assume the dual responsibilities as workers and as parents. Children are our future, and we need to provide as much support and assistance as possible to allow their parents to care for them in their early years.

When one looks at the amount of time that would actually be accumulated during a maternity or parental leave, we're not talking about a great deal of time in terms of numbers, but those parents who have taken the time from their jobs during the initial stages need to have the feeling of security that they're going to be able to come back to the workplace again and enjoy the fruits of their labours in terms of their vacation. In many collective agreements we're talking about fractions of days. In many non-unionized workplaces we again are talking about fractions of days in terms of the accumulations.

We hear a lot of discussion about family values, and in some versions of family values that are discussed is a version with two parents. In many cases, this is not the case in 1992. Many parents do not have a choice when it comes to working outside the home. This is not a case of parents wanting it all. It's clearly a case of survival. We should be adapting our laws and our legislation to suit the changing family in society. Again, we need to support the family in any way we can.

Our government, through the Minister of Labour, last year took steps to introduce amendments to the Employment Standards Act which will allow maternity leave benefits to accrue seniority. This bill is designed to expand on that premise by allowing parents to accrue their vacation and sick leave benefits while they're away. It's fair, it's equal and it sends a clear message to parents, and especially to new parents, that it's not acceptable to have parents penalized for having children. In fact, it will show that they're a valuable asset to our society and that they should be treasured, not punished.

While this amendment is certainly significant, it is by no means radical. Currently in Ontario, while we have a reasonable level of benefits, which again we have improved through amendments to the Employment Standards Act, it's still not as comprehensive as some plans in other countries. Countries such as Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, Austria and Denmark mandate that working women be paid at least 90% of their wages for 14 weeks or more. Again by example, in France employees continue to be entitled to work-related social benefits. Providing maternity leave benefits again is good business. Better productivity and higher morale are the rewards for the business that will allow for substantial family leave plans. In fact, allowing working parents flexibility on maternity benefits is more than just good business; it's an investment in our future.

The second part of my bill deals with workers' compensation. Currently, injured workers are now penalized twice: first, by the fact that they are injured in the workplace; secondly, by losing the right to accrue benefits while they're off.

In 1991, $2.3 billion in benefits was paid to injured workers. From January 1, 1992, to the end of July 1992, 221,000 claims had been filed for compensation. There are several issues around these numbers. Unfortunately, this bill can't deal with the substantive issues with respect to worker health and safety and workplace safety practices. But my point is that when workers have been injured at work they clearly should not be penalized by the employer in terms of his or her vacation plan or his or her sick leave plan.

What I've done with respect to WCB is put in a two-year period in order that employers are not looking at outside limits for the return of workers to the workplace. This mirrors the average period of time that many collective agreements currently have now with respect to return-to-work clauses. Again, this is an issue of fairness that has been a long-standing issue in my experience as a workplace health and safety officer, as a union president at CUPE Local 2001, Toronto General Hospital, and it's an issue that I lobbied the Minister of Labour on during the time we were passing the employment standards amendments.

In saying that, I would also like to indicate at this point that the Minister of Labour and the ministry do support these amendments and will certainly be assisting me as we move through the process.

Again, in conclusion, the issue with respect to maternity leave: It's good business for this province and it's good for the workers. It's not only good for just unionized workplaces; it's good for non-unionized workplaces. The issue of fairness and equality is something that we as legislators should all be concerned about, and ultimately and finally, in terms of our injured workers, we should not be looking at penalizing these people for a second time. They've been hurt -- in some cases, quite seriously. We need to do whatever we can not only to get them back to the workplace but to ensure that when they do return to the workplace they are returned as whole workers in all respects.

At the end of the debate today I'm going to ask that this bill be referred to the standing committee on resources development. I certainly look forward to support from all sides of the House.

1010

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I'd like to speak on this bill that has been brought forward in private members' hour, Bill 82, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act and the Workers' Compensation Act. I noted in passing that it is the hope of the member for Scarborough Centre that this bill be referred to the standing committee on resources development afterwards. I can only say that as the Labour critic for the official opposition who has been dealing with Bill 40, which is currently in the standing committee on resources development, the member will be aware that there are a great many people outside this chamber, throughout this province, representing many groups and associations, who feel very shut out from the process that the government has used in dealing with Bill 40, changes to the Labour Relations Act. They feel insulted that they were not given an opportunity to have their points, their thoughts, their opinions and their concerns heard in dealing with a piece of legislation they fundamentally feel will affect the future growth of this province.

So the member may want to reflect on his last request, because there are many people who have a very sour taste in their mouths, a bitter taste in their mouths when dealing with the standing committee on resources development and labour legislation.

The Deputy Speaker: I would ask you to speak to the bill, please.

Mr Offer: Having said that with respect to the request made by the member for Scarborough Centre, I will now turn to my concerns with respect to Bill 82. I am concerned. I had some specific concerns with the bill, but I must say that after listening to the member my concerns are only heightened, because the member did not speak to his own piece of legislation. The member spoke about fairness; the member spoke about an atmosphere as if there were no benefits currently under the Employment Standards Act.

I think it's important for us to recognize at the outset that this is totally false, that in fact Bill 82, in its own explanatory notes, states that the Employment Standards Act will be amended "to ensure that a person who takes a pregnancy or parental leave is entitled to the same amount of vacation and sick leave." That's what this bill is about. It is not about maternity or parental leave, which is currently in the legislation. It is not about the benefits to people in this province, currently the law of the land. Bill 82 does not speak to that, because there is no need to speak to that. The reason is because it is already embraced in legislation from which people have received the benefits. What Bill 82 speaks to is that a person who takes parental or pregnancy leave is entitled to vacation and sick leave as if they had not taken the leave. That's what Bill 82 is about, and I will deal with my concerns with respect to that and then move over, if time permits, to my concerns which will be largely mirrored in terms of this being extended to the workers' compensation system.

Let us be clear that the comments made by the mover of the bill were not in any way referable to the bill. The member spoke about family values, a case of survival, a penalization for having children. Again, that's as if there are not any benefits in law now. That's as if there is no maternity or parental leave, and that is just not the case.

For the member to insinuate that this bill is really to establish these types of benefits, well, there isn't anyone who has ever taken these benefits who would believe that, because he or she has already taken parental and maternity leave. They have and do receive benefits, and I and my party have always been supportive of that and will continue to be supportive of that. But this piece of legislation doesn't speak to that at all. It says that if people are on maternity or parental leave, then while they are on that leave, while they are receiving those benefits, so too shall they receive vacation and sick leave benefits, and that's what Bill 82 is all about.

In that regard, I think we have to ask ourselves a very difficult and tough question, and the question is, has there been any discussion with representatives of business groups and community organizations dealing with the costs that this will have, dealing with what it means to have an accrual of sick leave benefits and vacation benefits to the business people in the province? Has there been any discussion with a variety of social service agencies as to what impact this may have? Has there been any discussion as to where the need arises for this type of legislation? I hearken back to concerns I have heard on other pieces of legislation: Bill 40, dealing with changes to the Labour Relations Act; Bill 80, dealing with nothing less than a disaffiliation of provincial unions from their international counterparts. We won't deal with that, because I know that is not up for discussion at this point in time.

The issue that is always brought forward on this and these matters is that the government, which that member represents, has never sat down with the people who are directly affected to listen to their concerns; to deal with the issue of why; to move in a consensual, consultative manner towards resolving an issue.

I have heard and continue to hear on a variety of issues that the process the government uses is always to divide, to polarize groups, to polarize interests, and then its process is to build the distance between those groups that have concerns, until a time is reached when those groups say and do things, the wounds of which take years to heal.

1020

I am most critical of a government -- it is that government -- that utilizes that approach and that process time in and time out on a variety of issues which affect the future of this province, which affect the investment climate of this province, which affect the ability to create jobs in this province and to maintain a security for existing jobs.

I believe that this is another example of a member of the government moving on a piece of legislation which was not correctly referred by the mover of the bill in this chamber, without any consultation, without any idea as to what the costs of this may be, and to do so notwithstanding the very grave concerns that people have.

That is not to say that people will necessarily be against the bill. It is to say that we are dealing in an era where it is absolutely responsible, mandatory, for any government to look at the issue, to deal with the issue, to understand the issue, to understand its impact and, yes, to understand its cost. You do that not by squirrelling away in some ministry office but by reaching out to the people who will be affected to listen to their thoughts, concerns and opinions and then dealing with this bill.

This legislation flies in the face of true consultation. This is not about benefits to people on maternity or parental leave. Those are already allowed. This bill is about extending the benefits to include vacation and sick leave.

The member doesn't just leave it at the Employment Standards Act but moves further into the Workers' Compensation Act. I will read again from the legislation, the explanatory note. "The bill also ensures that the employee does not suffer a loss of vacation pay because of the leave. A corresponding amendment is made to the Workers' Compensation Act for workers who are unable to work because of an injury."

Again, the member would have you believe that the workers are not in receipt of any benefits. We all know that's not true. Workers do receive benefits under the workers' compensation system. What this amendment is saying is that while they are off on injury, while they're going through some rehabilitation, while they are receiving their benefits, we are also going to extend sick leave and vacation.

Again, the question is, what discussion has there been? Has this been done through the Workers' Compensation Board? There are many concerns over the running of the board. There are many concerns being voiced that the directors of the workers' compensation system, looking at other areas such as stress and funding, are in fact not even consulting widely enough on those issues. And here the member is bringing forward an extension to vacation and sick leave for workers who are injured, without any knowledge as to what that means to the funders of the system.

The funders of the system are employers. We know that the workers' compensation system is now running a debt of in excess of $10 billion. They are concerned as to how they are going to be able to deal with that debt. It would seem to me most responsible that issues of this kind be first dealt with very seriously in the area of how this will affect the unfunded liability of the workers' compensation system, because you may in fact be the architect of its destruction.

I say that not in any critical sense, but rather we no longer can afford to layer further debt on to a system which cannot find the means to pay its existing debts. I am not saying that should necessarily be a block or a barrier or a hurdle to looking at further benefits, but I am saying that it is only responsible, when looking at extending benefits, to do so fully cognizant of what the cost of this will be. It is irresponsible for any government to move on any benefit without knowing these answers. The people of this province demand no less. That's how they run their own households; that's how they live their lives. All they are saying is, "What we want this government to do is operate the way we operate our own households." Nothing magical about it; it's just based on responsibility.

I note that my time is running out, but I would say, firstly, that this bill is not about maternity and parental leave; that is already in the legislation. We have always supported that; we have extended that. This bill is about those who are on maternity and parental leave to also receive vacation and sick leave credits. Before you do that, you should be consulting with the social groups, the social agencies, the workers and the employers of this province. Then, at the end of that consultation, you bring forward some work, but not before.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome this opportunity to provide a few comments on private member's Bill 82, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act and the Workers' Compensation Act.

According to the member for Scarborough Centre, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Employment Standards Act to ensure that a person who takes a pregnancy or parental leave is entitled to the same amount of vacation and sick leave as if he or she had not taken the leave. The bill is also aimed at ensuring that an employee does not suffer a loss of vacation pay because of the leave as well. A corresponding amendment is made to the Workers' Compensation Act for workers unable to work because of injury.

In theory, this is a good move to encourage new parents to nurture their children without being penalized in the workplace. However, I'm hard pressed to support this bill at this particular time, due to the current difficult economic times facing the people of Ontario. Our economy is still being battered by high taxation, high unemployment and low productivity and our social structure is stretched to the limit by soaring costs for health, education and welfare.

This is not the right time. There really is no right time to hit Ontario's beleaguered taxpayers with a new expense. Economic opportunity, social justice and health care cannot be obtained by continuing to tax and toss money at our province. The NDP government has got to get its spending priorities in order to disburse the taxpayers' money more wisely, more efficiently and more effectively.

Of particular concern to me is the amendment to the Workers' Compensation Act. This will place an additional burden on the Workers' Compensation Board, which has an escalating unfunded liability of $10.3 billion. This debt represents about $45,000 for each firm presently registered with the WCB. Unless the WCB debt is brought under control, it will negatively impact the ability of Ontario businesses to compete and will impair future investment and employment in this province.

The current recession has led to an 11% decrease in employer assessment in 1990-91. The WCB derives 75% of its overall revenues from manufacturing, construction and natural resource industries, which have all been especially hard hit by the current recession. These three categories are not expected to regain 1989 employment levels until 1995, and even that recovery could be in doubt if the NDP government proceeds with its changes to the Ontario labour laws.

I suggest that the WCB system, which was created prior to 1920, is outdated and needs a complete overhaul rather than more tinkering. More than a financial burden, this is a system in crisis. The WCB funding strategy is flawed because it assumes that the solution to its financial crisis is simply raising enough money to pay for everything. It does not address the broader issue of whether there is a need for structural reform of the system. We maintain there is a need for a structural reform of the system.

1030

As I said earlier, the theory and principle of this bill, to encourage new parents to nurture their children without being penalized in the workplace and to allow parents to continue to earn service benefits while on leave, is a noble undertaking. But I still have serious concerns that the current economic climate in Ontario is not able to support an additional financial burden that would accompany the passage of this type of legislation at this time.

Mr Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity to say a few words on this private member's bill this morning.

The member is hoping to have the bill sent to the standing committee on resources development. He, as well as most other people in this Legislature, knows that the committee system around here is a farce. While I recognize the chairman of that committee tries to do the best with what he has to work with within the committee, it's a problem.

They talk about the consultation process; it's not working with this government. So to have this bill go to committee -- I would be surprised if that happens. There have been many other private members' bills here on Thursday mornings that get second reading and then are killed. I presume the same thing will happen to this bill. If this bill ever does get to the resources development committee, I would look forward to seeing what happens there, because I don't agree with the proposed bill this morning.

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I am very pleased to support the second reading of Bill 82, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act and the Workers' Compensation Act, and to support my colleague the member for Scarborough Centre. I believe this bill is part of the structure that we as a society must set in place to achieve the kind of society we in this House, and certainly we in this New Democratic government, wish to build.

It's been a long-held belief that the family is the basic unit of the community, the foundation that provides the signposts, the security and the stability that will ultimately make that community strong and viable. I'd like to add that I refer to all variations of the family unit. I'm aware that when we say "family," we may be perceiving it to be the old 1950s perception of the family, the one we got from American television, from Father Knows Best and Ozzie and Harriet: the two-parent family with children, a dog and a budgie. Whether or not that stereotype ever really existed is, I think, a matter of debate. We must, however, be realistically flexible and say that families are units of people who we hope are caring and nurturing, where individuals can find safety and security.

As the member for Scarborough Centre has so ably pointed out, that unit, that foundation which makes a strong community, is good for business, is good for investment, is good for the structures and institutions of our society. In short, it's good for all of us, and if we fail to provide whatever support we can, we do so to our own detriment, because the reality is that the financial demands on families, particularly young families, are significant.

Now, I know that many in this House are long past those difficult years when children are young and finances are thin -- all we need do is look at the elderly visage here in Mr Mills -- but that shouldn't prevent us from being aware, concerned and ready to act to ensure that families have the safety nets they need to provide the most healthy environment possible.

I can relate to that on a very personal level. My husband and I decided to begin a family after we'd been married for about four years. We'd worked very hard to establish a home in those four years and we felt we were ready for the responsibility, the demands and the joys of a child.

Despite those four years of effort and planning, the first months after the birth of our daughter were very difficult. At a time when we were dealing with the newness of parenthood, a remarkable change in our household, new responsibilities, we suffered and worried constantly about our financial stability. I had very limited maternity benefits. I might say that despite the fact that I was a working professional -- I was a teacher -- many of the women with whom I worked experienced the same kind of lack of financial support. I would be less than honest if I didn't tell you that I truly did feel penalized for committing the sin of having a child, and that should not be.

Fortunately, my husband and I have a very strong, mutually supportive relationship. We were a little more mature, perhaps, than some. I was 27; he was 30. He gets older every year; I don't. But at a time when there were tremendous stresses and when our daughter needed us to be very strong and to provide her with a positive environment, we had to deal with those stresses.

This bill is designed to expand on the premise that by allowing parents to accrue their vacation and sick leave benefits while they're away, they will be able to achieve real stability. I think that's an important message. I think it's very important for us in this House to acknowledge the fact that it is not responsible of us to penalize young families, that it is not responsible of us not to say that we as a society are going to make every effort to make every accommodation so that children are cared for in a financially secure environment whenever we can do that, because childhood is the first building block to that strong and viable and contributing human being we need if Ontario is to move ahead.

I'd like to thank the member for allowing me to speak on this bill. I would say to the members of this House that my constituents asked me to come to Queen's Park in Toronto to do this kind of job, to provide this kind of leadership, the kind of leadership we see in Bill 82, the kind of leadership that's been provided by the member for Scarborough Centre. I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to do that. My future, my child's future, our future is dependent on a strong Ontario.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to make a few comments regarding private member's Bill 82, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act and the Workers' Compensation Act. I'd like to pay tribute to the excellent contribution that was made by my colleague the member for Simcoe East. Certainly, many of the concerns I am going to raise at this time will echo those that have already been made by him.

The member for Scarborough Centre tells us the purpose of this bill is to ensure that individuals who take a pregnancy or parental leave are entitled to the same amount of vacation and sick leave as if they had not taken the leave. The bill is also aimed at ensuring that an employee does not suffer a loss of vacation pay because of the leave, and as well, he has introduced a corresponding amendment to the Workers' Compensation Act for workers who are unable to work because of injury.

He went on to say in his discussion this morning that there is a need for fairness, that there is a need for equality and that there is a need to make sure that parents continue to earn benefits while on leave. I would suggest that there is fairness and there is equality at the present time, because much of what the member is putting forward today was already put in place by Bill 14.

If you remember Bill 14, it was a very important step forward. It gave men and women who became parents, either through birth or adoption, the opportunity to better integrate their work and their family lives, and it gave them the security of job protection. Not only did it give them the security of job protection, but Bill 14 also supported them and gave them continuation of seniority and benefit accumulation through the maternity and parental leave period.

I would suggest to the member for Scarborough Centre that the benefits, the fairness and the equality are already there. I have a tremendous concern about the suggestion and the bill he's put forward this morning, because today we have another example of a government that is trying to introduce legislation without any consultation of all the partners who are needed for the dialogue. We've seen this on Bill 40 and we have seen this on Bill 80.

Nowhere has the member for Scarborough Centre demonstrated the need for this legislation. Nowhere has he been able to demonstrate what the economic impact would be.

1040

That's an area I want to make a few comments about. Much of the legislation that is being introduced and much of the new government regulation that is being introduced has a direct economic impact on the employer. It is the employer who provides jobs, particularly in the small business sector; it is that sector that provides new job creation. We cannot introduce new legislation with a cost to the employer without consulting with those individuals and that has not been done. I would suggest, if the government intends to proceed in this direction, for the first time ever, that it have consultation, that it truly take into consideration all the viewpoints of the people in this province.

Those viewpoints were certainly not taken into consideration during the discussions on Bill 40. During Bill 40, we had five weeks of public hearings and we had 600 written and oral presentations, and we did not even give those people the courtesy of listening to their concerns. The government is rushing through Bill 40, and we only had a chance to debate 32 of the 94 PC amendments.

If that's what they're going to do with this, obviously the indication is that there is no concern for the voice and the viewpoints of all the people in this province. If you're going to introduce this type of legislation, show the need, show the economic impact, have discussion with all the people who are impacted by the legislation and try to arrive at a resolution through consensus. That's what this government needs to start doing, rather than putting people into different camps and different groups and polarizing groups of people.

I would suggest that there's much that needs to be done. I would suggest to the member for Scarborough Centre, if he certainly wishes to do anything further, that he take the points I've raised into consideration.

I'm really surprised about the amendment to the Workers' Compensation Act. This would place, again, another additional burden on the board. My colleague the member for Simcoe East has already talked about the unfunded liability of over $10 billion. Unless this government starts to take action to bring that debt under control, that debt is going to continue to negatively impact the ability of all Ontario businesses to compete and it's going to have a very negative impact on future employment opportunities in this province and on future investment.

I would suggest that particular system needs a complete overhaul. It's something this government talked about when it was in opposition. They system is outdated. We cannot continue to tinker with the Workers' Compensation Board. There is a financial crisis at the board. It appears that no one is in control. The funding strategy is flawed, because the assumption that's being made over and over again is that the solution to the financial crisis is simply to raise money to pay for everything and to place a greater burden on the employers in this province. The solution of addressing the broader issue of whether there is a need for structural reform of the system has never, ever been considered by this government, and it's certainly time to do so.

In conclusion, I would have to say that at the present time I think we need to remember that Bill 14 had a significant impact on parents in this province. It does provide them with seniority and benefit accumulation throughout the entire parental leave period, and to suggest that people don't have benefits now is misleading the public.

I am concerned that Mr Owens wants to send it to the resources committee, because we know that the resources committee was not able to listen to the 600 presentations regarding Bill 40 and was not able to do the job adequately.

I would agree that we need to continue to support families in this province, but I have to question whether the type of support this government is offering to families is what families need. I can tell you that I receive many letters weekly from people in the riding of Waterloo North who question government initiatives and their impact on the family. They do not support the direction you are taking. For you to say this is in support of the family, I can tell you that there are many in disagreement with some of your other policies regarding abortion, the extension of benefits to homosexuals and casino gambling. Those are the types of concerns that people in my riding are questioning. They are questioning the impact of some of those decisions on the family, so you need to be aware of that as well.

I would just conclude by saying that we in the PC Party will be voting against this bill, and I would suggest to the member, if he is interested in examining this further, that he make sure that there be an economic impact study and that there be an opportunity for all viewpoints in this province to be not only heard but truly listened to for the first time.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): It's a privilege to be able to join in this debate on an issue which is fairly basic to working people, particularly working women. I did, however, want to take a few minutes of my time, and I beg the indulgence of my colleague the member for Scarborough Centre on this, because I feel that particularly the third party has raised a number of issues which are really quite extraneous to this bill. They in fact refer to Bill 40, which I understand they have some opposition to, but have presented a rather coloured view of what has transpired.

First and foremost, for the schools that are visiting here today, I'd like to point out that this is private member's hour, and in fact it relates to a private member's bill, not a government initiative. As a result, the kind of consultation both members from the PC Party have raised as a concern for them, as well as, I believe, the member from the Liberal Party, would happen as the bill is developed and goes into committee.

I would like to raise very specifically with the member for Kitchener-Wilmot the fact that her colleague the member for London North spent two years developing a bill relating to bicycle helmets. It took over two years to get this bill developed and through this House. This particular government, our government, took on her cause and that has become government policy.

Now, it didn't come just strictly because it was her bill, a private member's bill, but because it was something that spoke to a need throughout the province. So I think the member for Kitchener-Wilmot in particular would have to concede that the intent of private members' hour is to provide individual members with a chance to talk about their concerns and hopefully affect government policy and decision-making, which the member did.

Overall, these are some of the comments made from the opposition, and they are strictly differences in opinion. If I look at 18 months of consultation strictly on Bill 40, I find some of the comments that were made about the resources development committee or the white paper that was distributed previously totally inappropriate.

I would like also to comment on some of the issues of this bill specifically. I agree with the member for Scarborough Centre that this is a bill that relates to families and the needs of families.

Going home the other day to participate in an event, I had a chance to listen to the CBC and some of the discussions on women and work, something that a great many of us in the working world are aware of, since 52% of the population are women and almost 50% of the workforce happen to be women. A good many of them have children and have had great difficulty in dealing with day care issues and dealing with just basically, in some instances, getting to work because of getting their children out to school and the whole process of timeliness. This one case on the CBC the other day was in fact discussed at some length.

1050

This bill will allow parents who for the most part have not had a choice with regard to child care or some of the other issues -- this will give them an additional benefit and I believe in relation to other countries that exist, particularly in Europe where working women are paid at least 90% of their wages for 14 weeks or more -- in fact, I recently heard that this has been extended in some jurisdictions, so that these social benefits are an asset to working women and really an asset to all of society. We cannot just look at these as a liability.

Providing appropriate maternity leave benefits is really good for business: better productivity, higher morale. I really want to say that within that higher morale it means there is a stronger allegiance for employees to stay with an employer and that means a much more stable workforce. There are rewards for businesses that allow for substantial family leave plans. In fact, allowing working mothers flexibility on maternity benefits is more than just good business; it's an investment in our future and I think that's something that we all have to recognize. Our children are our future and by providing that kind of stable situation we do in fact promote our future.

The second part of this bill relates to the Workers' Compensation Act. While I think each and every one of our offices is definitely aware of the problems related to workmen's compensation, we have to be aware that workers who are on compensation are really still employees of that company and should be treated as such. The unfunded liability that some of our previous speakers have mentioned is really the result of a lot of tinkering by previous governments and today this government is left with the problem.

Since time is running out, Mr Speaker, I will in turn allow another member to speak. I thank the member for Scarborough Centre for bringing forward this particular bill.

Mr McLean: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I believe the record should be clarified for the students who are here. The member for St Catharines-Brock was referring to the member for Kitchener-Wilmot. The member for Kitchener-Wilmot is sitting right over there, not here.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you for your observation.

Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I'm very glad to be able to stand in the House this morning in private members' time and support my colleague the member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): That's a nice button, Gord.

Mr Mills: "I'm for Canada" it's flashing.

I don't know of a member in this Legislature who has a more caring attitude for people in the workplace than my colleague the member for Scarborough Centre.

I was kind of upset that the member for Waterloo North would choose this private members' period to go on about Bill 40, which is really nothing to do with this, and also to lambaste the member for supposedly introducing some sort of government bill without consultation. Of course, everybody here knows very well, and it's been pointed out clearly, that this is private members' time. As the member for Niagara has gone through, we've debated many things here, including the helmet legislation that's gone on through to come before a committee, and the member for Scarborough Centre had that intention when he introduced this this morning.

I can't think of a fairer thing to do when you are injured in the workplace. Nine times out of 10 that injury is through no fault of your own but probably through some sort of malfunction of equipment or whatever. That person who is injured is suddenly cut off from the benefits that he would accrue had he been at work. To me it's a basic statement of fairness. Like the member for Scarborough Centre, I'm interested in fairness and equality. I think this bill addresses that. Why should a worker be penalized twice, why should he be injured and cut off from work and why should he not accrue the benefits that he would accrue, as far as pension and holidays and sick leave credits are concerned, while he's injured?

This act follows up on the Employment Standards Act, which would allow parents on maternity or parental leave to accrue seniority. As a society, we have an obligation to encourage new parents to nurture their children. As some of the other members have already said in the Legislature this morning, our very future, Canada's very future, circles and circumvents around young people, and we have to identify that.

In closing, I would just like to encourage the member for Scarborough Centre to continue the fight to get this before the committee. I would like again to commend him for his sensitivity and his feeling towards working class people, many of whom he represents in Scarborough Centre.

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for this chance to make my comments and close off. There's my Canada flag flashing.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Scarborough Centre, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Owens: I appreciate the comments from the members for Mississauga North, Simcoe East, Middlesex, Waterloo North and St Catharines-Brock, as well as my friend and colleague Mr Mills, the member for Durham East.

It's unfortunate that such a non-partisan bill and non-partisan exercise has been dragged into the trenches of partisan activity. It would be most helpful if members from the opposition first of all knew what they were talking about before they stood up to criticize a piece of legislation.

I'd like to address some of the comments made by the member for Waterloo North. She talks about the amendments to the Employment Standards Act, which include seniority and benefits. That's quite true. If the member for Waterloo North understood the difference between seniority and service, she wouldn't stand up and make such a statement. Seniority is what entitles workers to the order in which they take vacation, the order in which they can apply for jobs, the order in which they are laid off or recalled. It has nothing to do with the accrual of service, which is the entitlement to sick time and vacation credits that this bill addresses.

With respect to Bill 40, some of the comments that were made were clearly inappropriate. The member for Waterloo North talked about the polarization that bill has caused. Let me tell you about polarization. One of the groups that supports the third party's position on this piece of legislation published an ad in a community newspaper in my area. Subsequent to that ad, I received a death threat on my answering machine in my constituency office. If that's the kind of polarization she's talking about, these kinds of wacko tactics are just right out to lunch.

In terms of the comments of the member for Simcoe East, yes, fairness is expensive. We have the opportunity to work together on the committee on the Ombudsman. You're absolutely right: Fairness and justice is an expensive process.

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

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF ABUSE

Mrs O'Neill moved resolution number 28:

That, in the opinion of this House, 20 months have passed since the New Democratic government was made aware of the physical, mental and sexual abuse inflicted upon residents of the Grandview reform school; and since the acknowledgement of the abuse and the impact this abuse had on its victims the government implemented a six-month package for the Grandview victims that was inclusive of priority access to therapy; and since this package is no longer in effect; and since the victims of Grandview continue to experience mental anguish and remain without any permanent support for priority access to therapy, funds for legal costs, funds for training, and additional compensation; and since the government has, through the introduction of a temporary package, which has now expired, acknowledged the abuse experienced by the Grandview victims as well as their need for compensation and therapy; and since this is a government that claims to be intolerant of abuse against women; the government of Ontario should take steps to immediately establish and implement a compensation program that is inclusive of priority access to a therapist (to be chosen by the victim), ongoing funding and access to training opportunities, financial aid for legal costs, and compensation that will allow the victims to deal with the abuse and devastating effect it has had on their lives.

1100

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Ottawa-Rideau has moved private member's notice of motion number 28. Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for her presentation.

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I rise this morning to introduce a resolution concerning the survivors of the former Grandview Training School for Girls in Cambridge, Ontario. This institution was opened in 1933 as a model for the treatment of adolescent girls who found themselves in trouble with the law and were sometimes described as difficult children, girls who often had a history of abuse at home long before the tragedy of sexual abuse was recognized and treated as publicly as it is now.

The then Minister of Public Welfare, the Honourable W.G. Martin, announced: "This will be a school of training, adjustment and opportunity. We're going to have the finest school in the country for troubled girls." And what happened to these teenagers who were taken to Grandview to be educated and rehabilitated?

In March 1968, the then Minister of Correctional Services, Allan Grossman, stood in this very chamber and stated, "We do not hesitate in expressing our pride in the achievements we have made at Grandview." But the students of Grandview were being sexually and physically abused by the very people who were to be helping them.

To date, after nearly two years of investigation, there have been over 60 women who have come forward with horror stories of the nightmare that was Grandview, women who Kitchener-Waterloo Record reporter Barbara Aggerholm describes as a mixture of women who are educated and undereducated, employed and unemployed, professional and non-professional, welfare recipients and salaried, married and single, parents and non-parents. There are women on mothers' allowance and university students, secretaries and indeed a sexual abuse counsellor. Nevertheless, these women have much in common.

Some of them tell us how they cannot remember ever being in a classroom at Grandview. They tell us stories of being driven to self-mutilation to prove to themselves they were human enough to feel. They tell us stories that make all of us want to turn our heads away in shame and horror that young women and teenage girls in our very own province of Ontario could have been so viciously attacked by the very employees of the provincial government that was to be their protector.

We must not continue to turn away from these victims, these survivors. We must show them the compassion, as belated as it is, that the government of Ontario should have shown over the last 20 years.

The response to this tragedy, in my view, has been slow and sporadic by the NDP government. In the beginning, staff resources for the police investigation were allocated very reluctantly by the Solicitor General, Allan Pilkey. To this date almost two years have passed since the first victims began to be questioned, and still not one single charge has been laid.

A minister in this government has resigned as a result of an accusation from a survivor. John Smith, a former Minister of Correctional Services, has made accusations of up to a 15-year coverup. The former chief psychologist has voluntarily left his teaching duties at the University of Ottawa. And very little response to all of these significant events.

As a bare minimum, this government must provide four things to these survivors. The interim counselling that was put in place when the investigation began was, in the view of the survivors, not as accessible or useful as it could have been. It was not directly dedicated to the victims. And with a priority access label, they were placed in an already overburdened system. In addition, the funding contract ran out in August 1992 and I understand is just now being reinstated, nearly two full months later -- a major interruption in satisfying a critical need.

The organization contracted to provide counselling, Family Service Ontario, is now being asked to provide the survivors with funding for the counsellor of their choice at the request of the survivors. This direction is impossible. In the absence of legislation regulating social workers, the professionals are unable to provide that choice, and such legislation has not been a priority with the NDP government.

Secondly, this government must provide educational opportunities to the survivors so they can take advantage of their potential. This is an integral part of the process of healing and rebuilding their lives.

Legal funding is also necessary to ensure that the interests of the survivors are met as the criminal investigation continues and moves into the judicial process. It is mandatory that the best legal advice be accessible to these women in this most complex, long-standing and difficult case.

Finally, the victims have repeatedly asked for their individual medical records, which contain information vital to them personally now, information concerning medications they may have been prescribed and whose long-term effects may only now be manifesting themselves. These women have an undeniable right to know their own personal medical histories. To hold this back in the interests of a police investigation which has been dragging on for 20 months without any evidence of progress only serves to compound the sense of frustration, that the system which abused them in the first place still does not care.

As I said, these are minimum requirements which will in a small way help these women get their lives back and make it possible for these women to be more than just survivors. I repeat: counselling, educational and training opportunities, legal assistance and access to medical records -- minimal requirements and responses.

When it comes right down to it, what these survivors are asking for is very, very little. They are asking for our respect and our recognition of the unassailable fact that what happened to them was not their fault and not of their doing; that there is no excuse, nor did they deserve to be placed in a dangerous and abusive situation. They are asking us for some reparation, so necessary to their rehabilitation. What happened to these women is a sting on the social conscience of all of us, and it must never, never be allowed to happen again.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased to have this opportunity to make a few comments on the resolution from the member for Ottawa-Rideau. This resolution, which concerns the physical, mental and sexual abuse inflicted upon residents of the Grandview reform school, calls on the government of Ontario to establish and implement a compensation program, including access to a therapist, providing funding and access to training opportunities, providing financial aid for legal costs and compensation to allow victims to deal with the abuse and the devastating effect it has had on their lives.

There's no doubt in my mind that the physical, mental and sexual abuse inflicted on residents of the Grandview reform school was an extremely sad occurrence that deprived residents of their dignity. It should never have happened, and similar situations should not be permitted to occur again at any time in the future.

I know how difficult it is to bring a matter like that which occurred at Grandview to the attention of the government. In November 1987, I urged the Minister of Health of the day to investigate living conditions and allegations of abuse in an Uptergrove group home. I would like to tell you a little bit about this very disturbing incident.

In May 1985, Joseph Kendall was discharged from the Queen Street Mental Health Centre in Toronto to Cedar Glen Boarding Home, a privately run home for ex-psychiatric patients and people with developmental disabilities at Uptergrove near Orillia. In November 1987, Mr Kendall died in hospital after he had been assaulted at Cedar Glen.

1110

Following Mr Kendall's death, an employee, who wished to remain anonymous, met me at my Orillia constituency office and told me about the deplorable health and squalid living conditions at this facility.

I tried to make the Health minister aware that health and living conditions at Cedar Glen were extremely unsatisfactory and that residents were not getting the care, treatment and dignified living conditions they rightly deserved. But I ran into a stone wall because the ex-psychiatric and developmentally disabled patients at Cedar Glen did not fall under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health. They were people living in a private boarding house that was not regulated by the Ontario government and, sadly, they had fallen through the cracks.

A 61-day inquest, the longest ever held in Canada, contained 83 sweeping recommendations when it released its report in 1990. "We, the jury, are shocked and appalled at the way the vulnerable adult is forced to live in this province," said a preamble written by the foreman in the jury's 17-page report. "These people are Canadian citizens -- some are veterans who have fought for this country -- and they have had their rights and dignity stripped from them and were put into society to live in conditions that are degrading at best." That's what the foreman said in his preamble.

We should all be shocked at the appalling incidents such as those that occurred at Cedar Glen and Grandview. We should all work towards ensuring that similar incidents do not occur again in the future. Governments cannot let people in their care fall through the cracks. There's no doubt in my mind that we cannot deny victims of physical, mental and sexual abuse proper access to therapy, access to training opportunities, financial aid for legal costs and compensation that will allow victims to deal with the abuse and the devastating effect it has had on their lives. This is a fact that I do not and, in all good conscience, cannot argue with. None of us can.

It is my hope that the current government will come up with the necessary funds already in the coffers to accomplish the goal of this resolution without imposing another burden on the taxpayers of this province.

I wanted to express my views on some of the experiences I've had, to try to make the government aware of some of the other situations. I think this resolution brings to this House today a very important debate.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I rise to support the member's motion. I think it's very important that we deal with these crucial issues, issues that for far too long have been left buried.

I also want to state very firmly that our party can be proud of its record in these areas. Back in 1968, 24 years ago, the member for Beaches-Woodbine, one of our members, rose in this House and questioned the treatment that young girls were receiving in that facility. At that time, the then minister ignored his complaints, belittled him, brought forth all of these accusations about his qualifications and said, how dare he speak.

He brought forth a number of issues from psychologists and psychiatrists. Those issues were known to the government at that time and it took no action; it ignored and it covered up. These are examples of tacit approval.

At that time, the member for Beaches-Woodbine was very qualified to speak on those issues. He had for most of his life worked with troubled adolescents. Let me read to you the Hansard from that date: "Is the honourable member able to inform us -- we're really curious -- about his professional qualifications?"

Let me tell you, that man's professional qualifications stood well above those that the minister was talking about. His professional qualifications included a membership in the academy of certified social workers. That's a profession that's not recognized in this province. It wasn't recognized by the Conservative government at that time. I'll tell you who the member was who spoke against him. It was a member of the Liberal Party at that time. That's still ongoing, and of course the province of Ontario is the only one without recognition. In five years and in 42 years, that hasn't occurred.

Troubled adolescents present a great deal of problem to our system, to our social services, because these young girls are very troubled. They've often been victims of abuse themselves. They're difficult to deal with. They present many problems. I know; I myself have worked extensively in children's mental health centres. Frankly, it is difficult to deal with them, and I appreciate those concerns, but these are also people who when they enter those institutions are victims themselves. There is no reason to condone or in any way approve of those abuses, as was done at that time.

When they enter those institutions, we as a community, as a society, should expect that the professionals who deal with them can deal with them in a trusting, competent way, and that was not done. The question arises -- we hear this in the media a lot -- why should there be some sort of historical retribution, some compensation for victims so many years later? I'll tell you why: because the effects of those abuses don't go away overnight. Those effects stay with them for a long time.

I can tell you from my own personal experience -- I am quoting here from a book which contains an article written by Drummond White: Having worked for many years, long before these issues became current and popular, with a group of adults who were molested as children, yes, those very young women who now suffer the effects of those abuses, I can tell you about my own experiences with those women. My experiences included women who've become so socially isolated that they became strangers to themselves, to their own community. They became dissociated from their own lives. They forgot. Those memories were so horrible that they had to block them out.

We have tremendous costs on a long-term basis. We have women who have suffered and suffered greatly who, as a result, often commit suicide, often are not the most sympathetic of women. But it is not their fault, as the member mentioned. They are suffering the effects of those abuses, long-term, profound abuse and long-term, profound effects. They need to receive the best of all possible care. It needs to be sensitive.

There are, I understand, some 60 women who have come forth, and I want to commend them for doing so. It is very difficult for these women to do so. I also want to say that many more will too, because these are women who have spent most of their lives hiding, most of their lives feeling as if they were responsible for the abuse that was inflicted upon them.

These are very grave effects and they have profound social and economic costs. These groups need our support, the groups for the survivors. They need our support. They are an essential way for those people to get the help they need, to feel a connection, to feel they are okay, that others have gone through the same thing and that it wasn't their fault. They also need professional help, sensitive professional help that deals with their issues, with their concerns and how these things have affected them.

I think the best way of doing this is to ensure that those practitioners who provide those services can offer them to them so that they have priority, so they can get those services as they need them and have some power in their own lives to be able to select the treating professionals they need, those trained social workers or other practitioners who offer those services. I know the Ontario Association of Family Service Agencies is very supportive of these kinds of treatments. I can say that very easily because, of course, this program represented a family service agency that I was working for at the time and that supported those programs.

I hope that my colleagues will be able to talk about how our government has responded, and I hope to hear that it has responded sensitively to their needs and will continue to do so.

1120

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I would like to begin by thanking and commending the member for Ottawa-Rideau for bringing forward this resolution, which is very sensitive, which is very important, and which is a matter of dealing with a shame and a blot on Ontario's history.

As the member for Ottawa-Rideau has said, we cannot, we must not, turn away from these victims any longer. These victims of the Grandview incidents have called themselves "walking time bombs." They are among the most vulnerable in our society, and a major cause of that has been what they endured while they were at Grandview. They are fragile and vulnerable, and surely we, of all people, should be the first to say that this shameful coverup must end: decades and decades of people who refused to bring it forward.

The one encouraging thing about all this is that a group of these women have banded together to help themselves, to join together to try to offer this kind of support. I just want to read you a quote from one of the women, Karen Schmidt, who went to Grandview in 1969 at age 15 and stayed there almost three years. "We believe by joining together we can help each other deal with the pain associated with our memories, and persuade the government and the public to take the matter seriously," she said. It's very sad when it comes to that before the public and the government will take these victims seriously.

They have also been offered help from the rape crisis centres, and we thank them for their support during this very difficult period. But, quite frankly, self-support and support of some of the organizations is not enough. As the member for Ottawa-Rideau has pointed out, government has fallen short.

There has been no dedicated funding to them. Yes, they were granted a very short interim funding plan of six months, but they had to join the lineup. As the member for Durham Centre has said, this is not good enough. They must be given priority.

Secondly, there must be educational opportunities. For instance, the government recently settled the St John's-St Joseph's boys' schools dispute. The settlement provided victims with financial compensation as well as funds for training. This same kind of settlement should be reached with the Grandview victims. It is only fair and it is only right.

Legal funding, again, is a very important priority for these victims so that they can seek redress.

Finally, the medical information must be released. To deny the victims this information is just an infringement on their human rights, and I think this is vital if they are to go ahead and put this behind them.

I think we must agree and we will agree as members that children deserve to be safe from abuse in our institutions. The question is, are we as government moving forward and acting in the best way we can to ensure that happens? I was quite encouraged over a year ago, almost a year and a half ago, in June 1991, when these stories started coming to light and the Minister of Community and Social Services, Zanana Akande, indicated she had not ruled out a provincial inquiry to ensure that young people are protected from sexual abuse in institutions.

In an interview the minister said, "I can't turn back the clock, but I do want to make sure that these people are being helped andI do want to make sure that we are creating situations where this is not happening today." Isn't that what it comes down to? Not only assisting those victims from the past, but also in making sure that our children are safe in institutions today.

The minister seemed to suggest that the funding and provision of counselling programs for Grandview victims would be a priority, as would ensuring the safety of children currently residing in provincial institutions. However, it wasn't till February 28 of this year that funding for counselling was finally provided for Grandview survivors, and now we find out that funding, as little as it was, has ended.

I think there are a number of things we can do. The one thing our leader, Lyn McLeod, has suggested is that the recommendations contained in Joanne Campbell's report -- a commission following allegations of abuse at St Joseph's and St John's training schools -- provided a blueprint to ensure that provincially operated facilities provided a safe and secure environment for children in care.

The NDP government has announced funding to improve training for staff and also to educate children of their rights and how to report abuse. But I say there's much more to be done. First of all, we must ensure that support for the victims. Secondly, additional OPP resources should be dedicated to the investigation to make sure that we understand exactly what happened and so that we can ensure it never happens again. Finally, we should call for an investigation into incidents of sexual abuse in provincial facilities. Surely the events at Bell Cairn bear out that this is necessary.

In my closing comments I would just like to echo those of the member for Ottawa-Rideau, "It is our duty and our responsibility as members to ensure that this never, ever happens again."

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): At the outset I wish to commend the member for Ottawa-Rideau for bringing forward this resolution. I have on occasion had opportunities to talk to her about this issue. As members are probably aware, I raised this issue both in the media and in this House back in May 1991 and at that time called for a public inquiry based on the information I had received from victims through the efforts of the journalists at the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, in particular Barb Aggerholm.

Since having raised the issue and since commenting publicly in several forums, I've had the rare privilege of having been contacted by the victims themselves, and within a very careful and very sensitive environment, along with their therapist, have been invited to meet with them to discuss at length and in detail the circumstances that brought them to Grandview and the circumstances that have brought them to this point in their lives when they are prepared to deal with the devastation of their treatment, both prior to and leading up to Grandview and their experience at Grandview.

I can only say that nothing in my life prepared me for the three and a half hours I spent meeting with these victims. I appreciate the fact that I've never had to experience the kinds of horrors, nor was I able to fully comprehend through the eyes of a woman just how serious are the tragedies that have befallen such a large number of girls and children.

We must remind all members of the House that these were children, in almost all cases, who were forced to attend Grandview centre. In almost every single case, and there's been enough documentation to date, these children were themselves victims of emotional, physical and sexual abuse in and around their home. I'm not saying all cases of children who were referred to Grandview, but in almost all cases.

What we have here is a situation where, as I talked to one girl -- and I'll refer to her as Mary because I wish to protect her anonymity -- she sat down and began to explain how she had been sexually assaulted by her father at age eight. Her mother, when she asked her for help, refused to acknowledge it. When she went to her priest, he refused to acknowledge it. Through a process of fleeing the home, she was charged with delinquency. She engaged in activities in her community and was picked up by the police.

1130

At age 11, this girl was used by the police, with wiretapping information, to get a prostitution conviction of an individual in her community. When she went, in her anonymity as an 11-year-old child, before the judge in his private chambers, it was fully disclosed and known how she had assisted the police and the circumstances leading up to her abuse. Yet, out of convenience, this girl, because the family did not wish to deal with the allegations of incest and sexual assault in the home, had been sent away. It was convenient to the police and the magistrate in that jurisdiction. These are the documented facts.

Why I share that terrible story with the members of this House is because we must have a public inquiry for these survivors because a police inquiry will not work. In virtually every case there has been some degree of abuse by authority. Whether it is the parent, whether it is the school, whether it is the police and, in several cases, the magistrate or the judge, these women have been badly hurt by positions of authority. So what do we, as legislators, come up with? We'll have an inquiry done by the police. A male authority figure is going to go in and start talking to one of these victims after she has been sexually assaulted.

I am told by the group of survivors that there could be as many as 20 to 25 former inmates who are today, in the city of Toronto, actively involved in prostitution. This is not an unusual circumstance. Victims of sexual assault and incest generally, if they cannot receive treatment, support and assistance, end up in a life of prostitution. We expect, in our arrogance, that a police officer is going to be able to go into their homes and get depositions from these people. One police officer has been assigned to this case. When they started to realize that there was sexual involvement with some of the police officers, then they thought they'd bring in the OPP.

I support fully the public statement of my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold, who said this is probably going to be another coverup, because he understands the point I'm raising in the House that these women will not get a proper hearing.

The second victim I met with at length was Sara. She was shaking. She would not talk to the police. After pouring out all of her history, her story, dates and details, she couldn't bring herself to talk to a police officer because she'd been abused by a police officer. You can't blame the girl for that. She's struggling to put her life together. She has a child of her own. She's trying to protect her child. She's afraid that if she comes forward, she'll lose her child.

She, in that moment of dignity, had the courage to ask the question, "Mr Jackson, you don't think I was bad, do you?" That's how frail and how battered these women are, but within them there is enough dignity if we understand what they've gone through and if we respond accordingly.

We need a public inquiry where these women will be given the protection they need in order to come forward with the facts. A police inquiry will not do that, and we know that. We must ensure that it is an as-of-right fact in this province. We're one of the few provinces that doesn't acknowledge that victims of incest and sexual assault should be guaranteed therapy services and access to psychiatric support services. Not to sound partisan, but if we, the last province in Canada, don't have a victim's bill of rights which acknowledges that victims of sexual assault deserve and must have the healing treatment of qualified therapists and psychiatrists, then these women will never be able to resolve the struggle that has gone on inside of them.

In Ontario today, these women are completely ineligible for criminal injuries compensation funding, because we have the lowest access rate in Canada for women and victims of sexual assault in this province to those funds. Why? Because our system doesn't acknowledge and understand the need.

There are serious health care cuts going on in this province, and we know that these are included among them, but I ask the members of this House to understand the depth of this problem, to listen to all members of this House who are saying that we don't necessarily need another police investigation. It failed in the 1960s. The first part of this police investigation is failing and the concluding one from the OPP will fail. The women will not come forward with all of their information, because they're not protected.

I would like to go on and talk about the devastation that's occurring with children's aid society funding. They were eligible for 0.5% from this government. There's an 80% increase in sexual assault on children today. The Grandview survivors, if asked, will tell you, "I'm coming forward because today children are being sexually assaulted, and I don't want them to go through what we're going through." There are five-, six-, eight-week waiting lists for children with reported sexual abuse. It's going on in this province today. The political will to resolve the Grandview issue and those children who are the ongoing victims of sexual, emotional and physical abuse at home must be a priority for us if we are to give those children any sense of dignity and hope.

One of the victims wanted me to share with the House part of a poem she had written, because she knew that many of the Grandview survivors would be watching today in the House. In 1986, years after her incident, Sherry wrote a poem, Because I Am:

Because I am and will continue to be

A human being, alive and free Free to choose and free to decide

Free to become my own life's guide.

Because I am.

Because I am and will continue to be

A human being, with dignity, A dignity that struggles to stay alive A dignity that says I will survive

Because I am me.

On behalf of the Grandview survivors, I ask all members of the House, on behalf of these victims, for their dignity, for their own self-empowerment, for a signal from this legislative chamber, because we represent what society will say and do for these victims. We must respond with the proper support services and get past the politics of a coverup and respond accordingly with sensitivity to these victims. They deserve no less.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I just have to say, after the previous member has spoken, that I think all of our offices are acutely aware of the situation and, in fact, all of our offices are probably advocating for people from Grandview. I know we take our job very, very seriously. These are very human and very real issues.

Speaking specifically to the member for Ottawa-Rideau's resolution, I will say to her that I will be supporting her resolution in principle, but I do have one or two concerns with regard to how the resolution is structured, and I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight with regard to some of the comments made.

First and foremost, the therapy package that she makes mention of, as she corrected within her comments, had no break in service at all. In fact, all of the people who were to receive service have received service and will continue to receive service into the new year, and the contract relating to counselling will, in fact, be renegotiated. That is the commitment, and no one will be abandoned.

Counsel for the Ministry of the Attorney General, who is in fact leading on this issue, is meeting this week with the executive of the Grandview survivors' group to determine what additional financial needs it has. Quite clearly, compensation is an option, as the member for Eglinton raised, and negotiations will undoubtedly at some point take place.

1140

This resolution calls for the government to take immediate action. It is our belief that immediate action was taken. As soon as women came forward their needs were responded to by this government. Our government negotiated with survivors through Family Service Ontario. Acknowledgement was made that choice for former Grandview residents is crucial and important and that women who come forward should receive service that is appropriate to meet their needs. It is my view that for the most part, and I'm not suggesting in all cases, that has been accomplished.

We continue as a government to have ongoing discussions with the women who have come forward regarding future service provision, funding for their organization, as well as compensation. Our commitment as a government is zero tolerance; it has been the policy of this government from the beginning. The Ontario women's directorate is working diligently to make all Ontarians aware that this problem must be rooted out. The past shows us that we have a long way to go but I believe also that we have made some headway. I also want to comment on the fact that there is additional funding that has taken place over recent time, that when money was required by the organization, in fact it was allocated.

In conclusion, I think the resolution is fundamentally incorrect and based on some misconceptions, but I will support in principle the intent of the resolution, as our government is committed to supporting women and this government is intolerant of abuse against women.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I rise in support of my colleague's motion and join in the debate.

I'm very pleased to see that the government members, at least those who have spoken, have indicated that they are going to be supporting this motion because I think it is important to look at the wording at the end of the member for Ottawa-Rideau's resolution where the focus of our time and our attention should be on the services, the help, the assistance that the victims require.

I don't think there is anything for a minister in any government more horrible than to have someone come in to tell you about allegations of abuse. As members will know, it was the question of St John's, the school in Alfred, that came to the fore when I served as Minister of Community and Social Services. I can remember, somewhat similar to my colleague from Burlington South as he recounted some of the discussions that he had with victims from Grandview, that as one talked to those who had the courage to come forward, we don't always realize, I think, those of us who by good fortune have not had to suffer through what these victims have, the incredible courage that it takes to stand up and to say what happened. We know that in the past and regrettably probably even in the present there are times when young people who are in our care, who are dealing with people in positions of trust, come forward to report things which are either not believed or which perhaps members of the adult community would prefer not to deal with. Then how does that young person go on trying to come to grips with it?

So as we sat down at that time to try to work out the kinds of services, the kinds of support, the kinds of assistance that would be required by the victims from the Alfred situation, I think what was clear to me was that the focus must always be on ensuring that the people who need services receive them and that somehow in the priorities that we set, whether in individual ministries or by the government, whatever else is going on, let's make sure that those are there, whether that is through ultimately a victims' bill of rights or simply a clear enunciation of government policy followed up by the kinds of services and funds required, I think for the victims it is the day of access to first-class aid and assistance. That is what I think as a Legislative Assembly we want to make clear.

I want to draw attention again to the report prepared by Joanne Campbell, The Review of Safeguards in Children's Residential Programs. There are always two things we're dealing with here. The first is to deal with certain actions that took place in the past, and where we want to do right by the victims, not only in terms of compensation but in terms of the rest of their lives, that the kind of help, whether job training or whatever kind of support they need, is there.

Of course, it also then raises the question, can we feel confident that similar things are not going on, that we are providing the children we currently have in care with the best protection possible?

The Joanne Campbell report, which came out of the St John's issue two years ago, was released in I think December 1990. I suggest to the government that it might be useful, as we are looking at the Grandview incident and as people are wondering about what protections are in place, to provide for the public an update on the recommendations provided in the report and the steps the government has taken to implement them.

I think there was an agreement at the time that Ms Campbell was an excellent person to undertake the review. I believe the report she prepared was an excellent one. There were many good things in it: many of the recommendations in terms of the training those working in care of children are receiving, the kind of response system one wants to have. As always in these cases, there is a need by the public -- indeed a right the public has -- to know that for the children in care today in the various institutions run by Community and Social Services, Correctional Services or any government agency, we really have moved far beyond the kind of care available in this case to the women at Grandview. I think that would be a useful step forward.

The other question that comes up when we look at this is what the range of services required is and how we go about funding them. Again, I think we know through the St John's matter and the Grandview matter that it is quite likely we're going to hear of other cases. I think people take courage from those who have come forward and, as we have seen and will see again, more will come forward to say, "These are things that happened." That means that what the government needs to do to respond to that is to have a more structured program, with a clearer set of the kinds of services that will be available, how people can access them and how, over a period of time, those services will continue.

I know the honourable member who spoke just before me has said that the services for the Grandview victims are continuing, but we know from the estimates discussion with the minister that there was a breakdown at one point where those services weren't there. If we have a more structured system in place, that won't happen, and we will be able to ensure that all of those who need help will get it.

We should go back as well to the comments made by the member for Burlington South around the dilemma that faces the victim, how they view us in authority and how we must try to break through that lack of trust which has grown up because people along the way -- different people in the system, whether police officers, social workers, members of the family, health workers, any particular part of society -- have not helped, or there's a feeling simply that their trust was misused and they didn't get the assistance they wanted. That is the reality, and no matter our professions of wanting to help, people are going to be suspicious.

1150

I think that means there needs to be some more structured response where, when people need help or want to come forward, that can be done. How is that organized? We have a number of different ways of protecting children, but I think we're simply going to have to strengthen them. I believe the Campbell report was a good place to start. Let's provide the services to the Grandview victims, make sure that's all there, and then let's move on and create a way of responding in future to the concerns those people are going to be bringing. I think one of the ways to start is to support my colleague's motion.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): As I listened to Mr Jackson and Mr Beer indicate on the bottom section of the resolution, I must agree with them: The bottom section of the resolution is an important one. Speaking on behalf of the ministry, I think we've identified that.

A number of issues have been brought forward about the interruption of services. The interruption of services never happened. The Ministry of Community and Social Services, with the Attorney General's office, is going to continue working with those victims on an ongoing basis.

If I were to stand here before you today and talk about how the victims feel, I think I'd be misleading a lot of people. What I can say is that I know the minister and the ministry itself are looking forward to working and continuing to work.

As we talk about these incidents that took place between 1960 and 1970, and the school closing in 1976, when it was brought to light in the early 1990s, it's something that was deeply embedded. The counselling my colleague Mr Drummond White had brought forward, the available services, the services required for people, are very important. It's a very deep issue that you have to kind of move into and try to bring out of individuals.

There is a continuing police investigation going on about what happened around this time period. Some of the charges are still pending, and it's very hard to make comment on that. But what we can make comment on is where the government is looking to continue and has continued the support programs that are in place. We're extending programs to March 31, 1993, and also the organizational support from November 30, 1992. But we will find out, through the dialogue, about services that need to be provided, because I believe that each individual case will be of significant difference.

I don't believe there will be two similar situations that you can compare. I believe in the continual approach of self-help groups to identify what took place in that time, because you have to go back a number of years and try to bring this out.

Mr McLean brought up important issue. I think it is very good to address it this time. It's around the Advocacy Act. It's very important to talk about the vulnerable people who are out there.

Mr Jackson also raised a number of points about the children of today's society. It's unfortunate that these incidents are happening, but I think we have to do an analysis of our society and ask why it is happening and look at the global picture of things and how we resolve this situation.

As my colleagues from this side of the House have indicated, we will be supporting the resolution. As Mr Jackson says, "Don't look at this in the political sense." That's exactly what we're not going to do; we're going to look at the contents of the bottom paragraph of this resolution.

The women's directorate and I have the privilege of working with the Minister of Community and Social Services, who is also the minister responsible for women's issues. This government continues to put its support to try to help the women of Ontario. We will continue to do that through a number of programs that were implemented in November 1990 and May 1991.

This government will continue to support the victims of Grandview, the victims who are outside in the province of Ontario, who are very important for us. I think as we members of the Legislature listen very closely, we'll be able to provide the mechanisms to solve the problems.

Mrs O'Neill: I am delighted that all members of the House are in agreement with my resolution that what the women of Grandview suffered is a stain on our social conscience, no matter which side of the House we sit on, and must never be allowed to happen again.

I have some difficulty with the accusations that I am dealing with misconceptions. I do keep in very close touch with the president of the survivors' group. There was certainly some misunderstanding and interruption of services at the end of August. I think that has been remedied.

The group support also seems at times to be very fragmented. The women expressed their needs to me in that they meet a wall of silence when they deal with the government, and a chasm of misunderstanding. The survivors know what their needs are and we must attempt to meet them, not with short-range March 31, 1991, deadlines, or August 30, 1992. This in itself builds in insecurities.

The victims themselves have talked to me about the zero tolerance statement of this government as sometimes being totally irrelevant to their experience. I am just bringing to you what their statements to me have been.

This morning we have had agreement, and I hope with that commitment the Grandview survivors will begin to have their real needs met. We must remove, once and for all, every suspicion of a coverup in this case. I'm very happy that all sides of the House appreciate what these victims are suffering and the cost it has been to them as individuals. I underline again, and all members have underlined, that it was not their fault. That is what makes this so very tragic.

The Grandview survivors' group needs support, the individuals need support, and I certainly think this structured support and response system that has been lacking should be put into place.

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

LABOUR STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LES LOIS CONCERNANT LE TRAVAIL

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 25, standing in the name of Mr Owens. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise?

Mr Owens has moved second reading of Bill 82, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act and the Workers' Compensation Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to standing order 94(f), this bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): I'd like to request that the bill be referred to the standing committee on resources development.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall the bill be referred to the standing committee? Agreed? All those in favour of the motion will please rise so that your numbers can be counted.

Please take your seats. The member for Welland-Thorold, would you please take your seat.

There is clearly a majority in favour that this bill be sent to the standing committee, therefore it will be referred to the standing committee.

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF ABUSE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mrs O'Neill has moved private member's notice of motion number 28. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of this motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1200 to 1205.

The Deputy Speaker: Mrs O'Neill has moved resolution number 28. All those in favour of the motion will please --

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: No, no, this is not a bill; this is a resolution. Mrs O'Neill has moved resolution number 28. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Ayes

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Callahan, Carter, Cooper, Coppen, Cunningham, Curling, Dadamo, Daigeler, Drainville, Duignan, Elston, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jackson, Johnson, Kormos, Lessard;

MacKinnon, Mahoney, Mammoliti, Marchese, Mathyssen, McLean, McLeod, Mills, Morrow, O'Connor, Offer, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Owens, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Rizzo, Sterling, Stockwell, Sutherland, Villeneuve, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion of Mrs O'Neill will please rise and remain standing until your name is called.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 48, the nays 0.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 48, the nays are 0. I declare the motion carried.

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

The House recessed at 1208.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WESTWAY AFRICAN CHOIR

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): At a time when all of us are trying to honour the unique and precious multicultural heritage that is ours in Ontario, and at a time when nations around the world are struggling to build bridges among peoples of different races, colours and religions, I want to pay tribute to the unique and very special contribution of the Westway African Choir at the Westway United Church in my riding of Etobicoke-Humber.

The Westway African Choir was formed in 1989 at a meeting of the Ghanaian brothers and sisters of the Westway United Church. The leader, and in many ways the driving figure, of this fine choir group has been Mr Kwasi Akuamoah Boateng, who has continued as the choir's director.

I had the pleasure of hearing the Westway African Choir perform at CultureFest in Etobicoke, and I was enchanted by the beautiful melody and striking rhythm that the members of this choir brought to their evangelical musical ministry.

I'm rising to pay tribute to Mr Boateng and the 20 or so active members of the Westway African Choir. They render a magnificent service in my constituency and, indeed, throughout the province and for the province of Ontario. The members of this assembly join me in wishing them well and in urging them to keep up their fine contribution to our cultural heritage in Ontario.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is directed to the Ministry of Natural Resources, and it concerns its misguided forest policy. The minister has only been in the House about three times since this session opened, and his total disrespect for this House is not going unnoticed.

The future for three tree growers in northwestern Ontario is particularly grave because none of the growers has contracts from your government for seedling production for the 1993 season.

At the same time there exists a serious lack of effort on the part of your government to settle simple negotiations with paper companies that would enable direct contracting with tree seedling producers in northwestern Ontario. Seedling producers have been informed by the paper companies that they are ready and eager to negotiate for the seedlings for 1993, but the holdup lies in the pulp and paper industry's inability to access the appropriate bureaucrats in order to come to an agreement.

Minister, the implications of your misguided forest policy on the tree seedling industry and all those employed in it are obviously devastating. The ramifications for our forests are equally in trouble.

Your current ministry budget allocates approximately $230 million to forestry over the next three years, and you plan to cut that by $100 million, $40 million to be slashed in the first year alone. You are feeding the current recession, rather than alleviating it, by killing off Ontario's forest industry.

EVENTS IN BEACHVILLE

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I rise today to correct an historical error regarding the first recorded game of baseball.

Documents show that a baseball game took place June 4, 1838, in Beachville, Ontario, in Oxford county, a full year before Abner Doubleday's claims for Cooperstown, New York.

It was almost 50 years afterwards that Dr Adam Ford, after moving to Denver, Colorado, reminisced about the sports of his youth in Oxford county.

In 1886 he wrote a letter to the editor of Sporting Life. He described a game played "in a nice, smooth pasture field just back of Enoch Burdick's shops" in Beachville. Research has confirmed many of the details of the day as he recounted them: the pasture, the players, the homemade ball and bats, even the militia unit that stopped to watch the game.

This kind of historical information is available to us because of the work of the Beachville District Historical Society Museum. The staff even helped to organize a re-creation of the first game on its 150th anniversary in 1988.

Last July it was especially pleasing for me to announce on behalf of the Minister of Culture and Communications that the Beachville District Historical Society Museum would receive up to $11,000 to help build an additional exhibition space.

The historical society has also another tie to baseball history. Earlier this year it moved to a grey stone house, built in 1851. The house has been owned by a local quarry operation, BeachviLime Ltd. Beachville, of course, is the lime capital of Canada, and over the years its products have been used to line countless baseball diamonds across North America.

In closing, I hope our good friends and neighbours to the south don't take offence when I turn their sports mythology upside down by explaining that baseball has always been our game and we will demonstrate that tonight when Canada's team, the Toronto Blue Jays, claim the World Series title by winning game 5.

STEVE MACLEAN

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Today, Steve MacLean, a resident of Nepean, will become the third Canadian to reach space. This is a very proud moment, foremost for Steve and his wife, Nadine, and for his parents, Paul and Helen, who reside in my great city as well. But it is also a special moment for all people of Nepean. My fellow citizens and I join in the pride and excitement of the MacLean family and wish Steve every success in his research mission in space.

Nine years of strenuous training have preceded this trip to space, not to mention the tremendous efforts that went into his selection in 1983 from 4,400 applicants as one of Canada's first six astronauts.

Nepeanite Steve MacLean is a two-time Canadian gymnastics champion, the President's Medal winner at York University, an esteemed astrophysicist, a rock climber, a pilot and a parachutist.

As a payload specialist during his mission on spaceship Columbia, MacLean will do experiments on behalf of Canadian scientists. His biggest task will be to test the space vision system which will help future astronauts better guide the robotic Canadarm.

On behalf of everyone in Nepean, I invite my colleagues in the Ontario Legislature to join me in congratulating astronaut Steve MacLean and wishing him a safe and successful return to planet earth.

HEALTH LEGISLATION

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): My statement today is about a concern I and many others have with the Health Protection and Promotion Act. My particular concerns with this piece of legislation were brought forward in a meeting I had with the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association and stem from its frustration in trying to find out if members of its association have come in contract with a person who has a communicable disease in the course of their duties.

We are asking the emergency care providers of this province to protect our health without giving them the means to protect their own. Ontario firefighters, ambulance drivers and police officers provide an invaluable service protecting our families and lives and yet we do not give the ability to protect themselves.

I have prepared a private member's bill that I will be introducing in this Legislature later today, asking for the members of this House to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Amendment Act, thereby allowing people who have been involved in an emergency care situation to be informed by the medical officer of health as to whether they have been exposed to a reportable and communicable disease in the course of helping someone in an emergency situation.

The medical officer of health would be obligated to tell emergency care providers if they had been in contact with an individual who has a communicable disease, thereby allowing the care givers the opportunity to protect themselves and their families from further spread of the disease.

As aware and careful as we are about how to protect ourselves from communicable diseases, we are putting our firefighters, ambulance workers and police officers at great risk when we do not allow them to know if they have come in contact with an individual who has a communicable disease.

1340

STUDENT NEWSPAPERS

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): At Ontario's universities our young people, our next generation, receive the education to cope with the world they will inherit. The intellectual disciplines of academe demand the ability to deconstruct writing, to be aware of the history of society's institutions, to have the ability to analyse statistics to ensure that published studies have validity, to write defensible papers based on carefully studied facts.

I would like to commend the learning and teaching of the students on a number of student newspapers: the Varsity at the University of Toronto, the Arthur at Trent, the Lance at Windsor, the Ontarian at the University of Guelph and Excalibur at York University.

They have voted to pull their papers, which have a combined circulation of over 100,000, out of the Ontario Community Newspaper Association because of that organization's tendentious campaign against Bill 40. Obviously they would be embarrassed to be associated with the selected facts and unsupportable assertions of OCNA's campaign.

Let me quote Drew Davis, editor of Guelph's Ontarian, who says: "Newspapers have a special responsibility to provide balanced and fair coverage of the news. To take an active part in opposing or supporting legislation in the way OCNA has done is totally unacceptable."

We must never minimize the value of a free and objective press. I hope members of this House will join me in complimenting the students on their well-thought-out and principled action.

PERSONS DAY

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Sixty-three years ago, in an historic decision by the Privy Council of Great Britain, the women of Canada were declared persons and given the right to hold public office. Tomorrow morning, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, which we commonly call LEAF, will hold its fifth annual Persons Day breakfast to commemorate this event.

As amazing as it sounds, before 1929 women were not recognized as persons under our Constitution and under our laws. It took 12 years of hard work by the famous five, led by Nellie McClung, to secure this recognition.

Those of us who today enjoy all the advantages of personhood, including the right to serve in this Legislature, owe a great deal to those women who worked so hard for so long to advance the cause of women. They established that we not only have the right to vote but also the right to fully participate.

While the "persons" decision was not a recognition that men and women were equal, it was certainly a pivotal step in the women's movement. Sometimes we get very discouraged, because here, 63 years later, we're still fighting the battle for pay equity, child care, freedom of choice and the ability to live free from the threat of violence in our homes and in our communities. But without the initiative seized by those suffragettes, we would not have advanced as far as we have today. We owe Nellie McClung and the women who pioneered the women's rights movement our eternal gratitude.

HOPE PLACE WOMEN'S TREATMENT CENTRE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): In recognition of International Persons Day for Women, I wish to acknowledge the important services being provided by Hope Place Women's Treatment Centre in Milton to women suffering from alcohol addiction.

Hope Place fills a great need in Halton and Peel regions, where there are over 8,000 women requiring addiction treatment services. For the past two and a half years Hope Place has been providing community-based treatment for 200 women it successfully assists each year. Its treatment programs are oriented to address the specific problems of women alcoholics. Many women alcoholics are victims of physical and sexual abuse who also suffer additional scorn for their addiction by a society that refuses to recognize their victimization by male-dominated relationships and institutions.

Hope Place may itself, however, become a victim at the hands of the NDP Health minister, who is refusing to adequately fund the treatment centre. A year ago the Health minister announced she was cutting OHIP benefits to Ontario residents who receive alcohol treatment services in the US when not available in Ontario. We believed she was sincere then when the minister promised to divert those funds to improved community-based treatment programs and centres in our province.

Why now is the minister cutting this funding for centres like Hope Place? I call on the Minister of Health to reconsider her confusing funding priorities, especially with respect to the needs of vulnerable women in Ontario.

FOSTER FAMILY WEEK

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): On behalf of the government and all members of this House I am pleased to join the Canadian Foster Family Association in declaring this week, October 18 to 24, Canadian Foster Family Week.

Foster Family Week is an opportunity for all of us to celebrate and recognize the important role foster families play in providing a safe, stable and caring environment for children who require alternative family settings. The 54 children's aid societies in Ontario provide substitute care to more than 19,000 children annually. As of December 31, 1991, about 55% of those children were being cared for in over 4,800 foster homes.

During Canadian Foster Family Week, foster families, children's aid societies and foster parent associations throughout the province will be involved in a wide variety of special events designed to recognize people who are currently foster parents and to potentially recruit new foster families.

I know I speak for everyone here when I say thank you to all the foster parents in Ontario for their dedication and concern for the special needs of children, and to children's aid societies for their ongoing commitment to children in Ontario.

On behalf of Canadian Foster Family Week, we have a number of guests in the members' gallery east representing the Foster Parent Society of Ontario and the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies.

Also, it's kind of a recruitment drive, and I have a little poster here I'd like to show. It says: "Wanted: Someone to hug and bug. Be a Foster Parent." So if anyone out there is watching and they have any desire to be a foster parent, they should contact their children's aid society or the foster parent association.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING / LOGEMENTS À PRIX ABORDABLES

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I'm pleased to release in the House today Consultation Counts. It's readable. It's a document that will change the way non-profit housing is delivered in this province. It's the result of the housing framework consultations that we've been working on for more than a year, and it takes non-profit housing in new directions.

We've heard from a range of people who live and work in non-profit housing, and through them we've found ways to improve our non-profit programs. This is a new beginning for non-profit housing.

For six years now, Ontario has delivered provincial non-profit housing programs, and overall we've done a very good job. We've created thousands of homes for Ontarians and generated tens of thousands of jobs. But non-profit housing has changed over the years, and it's time for us to change the way it is delivered and the way it operates.

We know that in the past, consultations have all too often left out the people they affect the most. In the case of non-profit housing, the people who are looking for decent, affordable housing are often the ones who have gone unheard.

Nous voulions nous assurer que ces personnes fassent partie de La consultation : ça compte. Nous les avons rencontrées dans des centres de rencontre et dans des maisons de chambres pour nous assurer qu'elles auraient voix au chapitre dans cette consultation. Les personnes auxquelles nous avons parlé nous ont appris d'importantes leçons.

We heard one particular message over and over again: Residents need to be involved in their housing. It makes sense. Who knows a place better than the people who live in it?

We're taking steps to make sure residents have more say in how their buildings are run. Non-profit communities will now have to have residents on their boards of directors, and residents will be involved in deciding how their buildings are managed.

Non-profit housing has to be more accessible to people with special needs, so we're asking groups to include more of these units in their buildings, and we're looking for designs that can be easily converted into physically accessible units.

We're also going to better coordinate the support services already provided by different ministries.

We also believe that non-profit housing must be more accessible. We want to make it easier to find. We want to simplify the process of getting in and we want people to know how the selection process works.

Pour ce faire, nous prévoyons instaurer un système à «guichet unique» ; les personnes pourront se présenter ou téléphoner à un endroit où elles pourront obtenir tous les renseignements dont elles ont besoin concernant le logement à but non lucratif.

1350

We're building a closer partnership with the non-profit sector, a partnership with new ground rules. Non-profit housing has come a long way over the past six years, and so have the people who build and manage it. They have years of experience now and it's time for us to take advantage of what they've learned. It's time for non-profit housing providers to take on more responsibility in terms of their day-to-day management.

We're still going to monitor things like financial accountability, but by concentrating more on end results and less on daily details. These changes will result in less duplication and will create a more efficient program. We're striving to make non-profit housing easier to understand and more sensitive to people's needs.

We're also setting guidelines for the use of government lands for housing. Our new policy will strengthen the requirements for non-profit and affordable market housing on these sites. Under the old policy, 35% of housing on government land had to be affordable. Now 35% will be non-profit and an additional 35% will be affordable market housing. Small sites, those that can accommodate only one project, will be used exclusively for non-profit housing.

As the federal government statistics have stated on many occasions, non-profit housing is keeping our residential construction industry going during these tough times. In fact, this year it will generate 43,000 jobs in Ontario.

The 24,000 non-profit homes that will be under construction this year will provide homes for people like the woman I had tea with at the opening of Rotary Cheshire Homes for Deaf-Blind Adults in North York. For the first time in her life she had a place she could call her own, something she thought she'd never have.

It is true that building this kind of housing is expensive, but when you buy a house you make an investment for the future. That's what we're doing. We're paying off a mortgage instead of paying rent, and at the end of the road we'll have more affordable houses for Ontarians, a lasting investment to show for public dollars.

Consultation Counts is part of this government's continuing commitment to non-profit housing, and I look forward to seeing its policies and principles implemented in Jobs Ontario Homes.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Richard Simmons would be embarrassed about running this on TV.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Why don't you listen?

Mr Stockwell: I heard it. I read it. It's a puff piece, Mills.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: We'll be ready to do a proposal call for the program in November and we plan to announce the first allocations early in the new year.

The housing framework consultation has been a long process -- longer than we had initially hoped -- but it's also been a very good and a very rewarding one. We're taking non-profit housing in some exciting new directions, and I'm very proud to be part of that effort.

The Speaker: Statements by ministers. Responses.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a number of comments to make in response to the minister's statement today. To say that we've been waiting for this for a long time is an understatement. It's been a year and a half since it was initially introduced. The consultation ended a year ago, we have been asking the minister on a regular basis where it was, and finally we have the document.

It would have been nice, after waiting for a year and half, if the minister's office had had the courtesy to let the critics have a copy prior to 10 minutes before her statement. It's a 47-page document, and to reply with any informed opinion is extremely difficult when we haven't had the opportunity to actually read the document.

There are a number of things which the minister talked about that we definitely support and that I think all members of this House should support.

How could you say that you don't think residents should have more of a say in how their buildings are run? That's very important. How can you say that you don't believe it should be accessible? Of course non-profit housing should be accessible, and we believe in going in this direction.

The one-window system is also a good idea. Increasing the affordable housing component by the additional 35%, which it will now be geared to -- 35% non-profit plus 35% affordable market housing -- I think is a very positive direction.

But I must tell you that I do have a problem with a number of the things the government is doing, because its actions just don't match its words.

On page 6 of this document, it lists the policy objectives. Number 7 is, "Support the important role of the private sector in the housing market by encouraging measures that assist the financing of private sector housing and provide efficient planning processes." This is a joke. The private sector in Ontario has learned not to trust this government. They negotiated in good faith over the Rent Control Act and found that they were stabbed in the back. There has been no partnership with the private sector. There wasn't before, and believe me, because there is no trust there, there will not be in future. So you may say these nice words, but the private sector is not going to be interested in doing a whole lot of work with you.

The second is, "Recognize and support the important and interrelated roles of municipalities, the not-for-profit sector and private housing sector in creating a wide range of types and tenures of affordable housing in Ontario." Again, the actions don't match the words. Look at the accessory apartment, the basement apartment issue. That's an issue where the principles and the intentions are good intentions but they went severely amok, because the municipalities were not involved in meaningful consultation. Their ideas were not accepted, Madam Minister. You can shake your head, whatever you want, but municipalities are saying that they have not been involved. This is a made in Queen's Park policy and you have not consulted with the municipalities as to the effect.

Number 9, "Prevent the deterioration of the existing buildings and explore opportunities to create new homes from these buildings, since they are the greatest source of affordable housing." This is nothing less than a mockery. This is a picture, which members probably can't see, but it shows the state of our social housing in Ontario. The Ontario Housing Corp and the MTHA are crying out for money to help them shore up their existing buildings and they are not getting it. So to talk about deterioration of existing buildings when you don't practice what you preach is not going to be terribly helpful, because people are not going to trust you. We want to know how you're going to deal with this. I look forward to looking to the other 41 pages and hope they'll give us some of the answers in this regard.

One final point. They mentioned that Jobs Ontario Homes will produce another 20,000 homes in Ontario and 34,000 jobs over the next three years. At the time the budget came out, we said you would not be producing one job through Jobs Ontario Homes this year, and that in fact is true. Your own ministry officials confirmed it in Housing estimates and now you're talking about hopefully having some allocations next year. There will not be construction jobs coming out of the Jobs Ontario Homes program this year and they won't even come out this fiscal year, because by the time those are being built, we are into the next fiscal year. One more case of smoke and mirrors from this government that doesn't put its principles where its mouth is.

The Speaker: Responses, third party, the member for Mississauga South.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I want to stand in this House this afternoon in response to the Minister of Housing's statement and congratulate her. The reason I want to congratulate her is that obviously she's the first cabinet member of this government to recognize that the Progressive Conservatives have the answer to the problems of this province. The fact that her press release is called New Directions for Non-Profit Housing is something that we over in the Progressive Conservative caucus of course welcome. If the other members of your cabinet would like to see the other answers to the problems in this province under our New Directions booklet, they're more than welcome. You don't even have to phone the 1-800 number; we will personally deliver them to you.

This is another typical Bob Rae government announcement. It is absolutely nothing to do with solving a very serious problem, that of affordable housing in this province. How many times do we have to say, over and over again, that announcements don't do it? Reinventing the statements that have been made in their number of throne speeches through further announcements in this House do not create one single more affordable unit.

I think it's very unfortunate for the public of this province to have to listen to these kinds of statements. I guess the best part is that for the most part, the general public doesn't hear these statements. They don't have to put up with what we have to put up with, which is a Minister of Housing standing in the House reading a statement that essentially doesn't mean anything.

1400

The fact is that this minister is refusing to have a meeting with someone in this province who may just happen to have a solution for affordable housing. I'm not talking about somebody who wants to create a basement apartment or an accessory apartment, because we've already said very clearly that this is not our solution for affordable housing. I personally do not believe that the solution for affordable housing in Ontario is a view from a basement window.

There is an organization called Toronto Habitat for Humanity Inc. This group is made up totally of volunteers. At no cost to the taxpayer, they have already created one house in Toronto. They have many worthwhile solutions that they would like to convey to this Minister of Housing. I would like to tell you that the chairperson of their board of directors is a Mr Bob Simpson, CPP. I'd like to also tell you that Mr Simpson is a senior purchasing officer with the supply and services branch of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

This person cannot get a meeting with this minister to help resolve a problem of housing in this province. How disgusting that is when here is a group of volunteers who simply say, "We have a solution; we're not asking for any government funds; we're simply asking for a meeting with the Housing minister," and she's not willing to listen to this group of people with their constructive ideas. However, this same minister is more than willing to hand out government funds to a whole group of individuals and organizations in this province, to which, as she announced on October 14, they are giving $3.7 million in grants. I notice some very interesting organizations on this list.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Name names.

Mrs Marland: Well, how about the CAW community development group -- $60,000 -- and a whole list, particularly of tenant organizations. I think if you're going to give money to tenants, you are misleading those tenants because tenants cannot create houses with this kind of funding.

We're back to the old argument about what it is that the Minister of Housing is doing. It's absolutely nothing. We have no more units and we have no solution, because she is not willing to listen to the practical advice of people who know how to solve the housing crisis in this province today, and that's the Progressive Conservative Party.

ORAL QUESTIONS

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Solicitor General. The minister is well aware that other police forces across the province have indicated that they will be joining the Metro police in their job action. The Ontario Provincial Police Association has now stated that it too will join the job action if you and the Premier do not meet with the Metro police association within 72 hours. Minister, clearly you have allowed this to become a crisis situation. This is not a contest about who can make the other side blink. Minister, I ask again, when will you show some leadership on this issue? When will you and the Premier take that first step to resolve this impasse?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): As I indicated in the House, I believe yesterday, the job action taken by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association is a matter that is properly being dealt with by the chief of police and the police services board. Their most recent action is to file for injunctive relief before the Supreme Court of Ontario, and that matter will be heard very shortly.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, while we have said in the past that we do not condone the job action, and clearly we do not, it is nevertheless something that concerns us and all members of the public very deeply. It is because of our concern that we find it absolutely incomprehensible that you would provide that kind of answer as this crisis reaches greater and greater proportions. We find it incomprehensible that you and the Premier have chosen to simply sit on the sidelines.

I recall the Premier, who was then opposition leader, in 1987 making comments during a job action that was undertaken by workers at McDonnell Douglas. At the time, Bob Rae expressed disbelief that workers would have to undertake that kind of job action simply in order to be heard. I also recall that the minister met with Bob White before the workers had ended their job action. Minister, why will your government not give the same kind of consideration to the police that it gives to other groups?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The Premier's position, and quite properly so, on this matter has been that he was quite prepared to meet with any police stakeholders or associations prior to this illegal job action, and he is quite prepared to meet with police associations, chiefs of police or anybody from those particular associations after the cessation of this illegal job action.

I, as well, have indicated for approximately the last two weeks that my door is open to meet with police stakeholder groups if they wish to do so, and as a matter of fact, last week the Ontario Provincial Police Association did just that. As a matter of fact, just on another update, as was mentioned last evening, the Premier addressed the Ontario Provincial Police Association at Midland, Ontario, and he conveyed some very heartfelt thoughts to it. He indicated very directly and fairly his position, and indicated that he was willing to meet with them and all others commensurate with the cessation of the improper job action.

Mrs McLeod: I wonder why on an issue of this seriousness the minister keeps trying to give us responses which clearly haven't served the purpose. We know that he met with the Ontario Provincial Police. What we're saying is that the Ontario Provincial Police are now saying that they will join the job action unless he and the Premier meet with the Metro police association to hear its concerns within the next 72 hours. That's the result of the minister's meeting with the Ontario Provincial Police.

I don't understand why the government has decided that this is the place on which it will stand so firmly on this issue. The Deputy Premier recently asked for examples of a government agreeing to a meeting while work action was continuing, so let me give him one example of his government taking a different position on a different issue.

The minister will probably recall 1991, during what we would describe as a job action by provincial truckers protesting taxes and federal regulations, and both the Deputy Premier and the Minister of Transportation met with respresentatives of the truckers to discuss their grievances.

Minister, I would just ask in all seriousness, why are you turning this issue into a standoff instead of acting in the public interest?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I'd like to indicate in response to the member opposite that my ministry has met with the police stakeholder groups, that's the Association of Chiefs of Police, the Police Association of Ontario and the police services boards of Ontario on an ongoing basis, and they were a part of the consultation group that was called upon during the development of these particular regulations. Therefore, there is no exclusion or no reason to attempt not to meet.

The recent stance by the Premier, which I believe to be correct, because this is an illegal act against the Police Services Act, is that he will continue to meet with them at the cessation of this matter.

In the meantime, my door, as usual -- and as has been the case in the past and will be into the future -- is open to them. As a matter of fact, the issue was raised at the OPPA in Midland last night. It was the same association which just last week took a full-page ad out in the Toronto Sun explaining how very terribly, terribly concerned it was at the level of emotion that had been raised with this particular issue and citing the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association for a wide variety of activities that it deems to be absolutely inappropriate.

I can see by your signalling, Mr Speaker, that I don't have time to read them out, but they are quite dramatic.

1410

REPORT ON VICTIMS OF ABUSE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): In the absence of the Attorney General, I'll direct my second question to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Today we learned that the Attorney General has taken steps on behalf of the government to stop the Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner from releasing the 1976 report of abuse at the Grandview reform school for girls. I would ask the minister if she will tell us why her government is taking this rather unprecedented action to suppress this information from the victims and from the public.

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): I was not aware of this incident. I cannot answer the question and will have to defer it until the Attorney General is in the House.

Mrs McLeod: I confess that I'm completely taken by surprise that the Minister of Community and Social Services is not aware of the seriousness of this issue, which has received debate and unanimous support of a resolution from a member of this House just this morning and an issue which has been fully reported in the newspapers.

I will pursue the question because it's one that we simply must raise. According to the archives, the 1976 report that's in question provides detailed documentation of emotional and physical behaviour of employees towards wards of the school. The 1976 report, we understand, could in fact corroborate the abuse which victims allege has taken place in the Grandview school.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner has just ruled that the report should be released. Your government has gone to court to prevent that report from being released. Minister, I should tell you that one of those survivors, Judi Harris, has said, "The government is definitely protecting somebody, and it certainly isn't us." Minister, I would ask you to reflect: Is she right? Is your government trying to protect somebody? If not, what possible reason could your government have for suppressing this report?

Hon Mrs Boyd: First of all, the member opposite is quite aware that I am aware of the seriousness of this. In fact, I have been a strong advocate on behalf of those who are survivors of the incidents at Grandview.

When you say that our government is blocking this, the issue is before the courts. The police are still investigating, and the whole issue of the judicial review, which I assume is what you're talking about when you talk about a blocking of the order of the commissioner, is because of that ongoing police investigation. When I first became minister we had a request from the police around any records that were still available in our ministry to ensure they had access to those to carry on the investigation, and to the best of our ability in our ministry we complied with that.

That is my understanding of the situation, that the whole issue of withholding is only while the investigation and the court cases are ongoing.

Mrs McLeod: I understand that the minister is concerned about the issue. I understand that she is concerned about the difficulties women have in coming forward with these kinds of charges. I would have been surprised had she not known about the issue. I'm reassured when she tells me she's aware of the Grandview issue. But I have to tell you I am truly appalled that her government, that any of her colleagues could take this kind of unprecedented action and not make this minister aware of the action that was being taken.

Minister, I should tell you this is not an issue in relationship to the judicial proceedings. It's not an issue in relationship to the police investigation. As you will know, originally the archives refused release of the report on the grounds that it might indeed interfere with the police investigation. The Kitchener-Waterloo Record and one other paper determined they would appeal that decision of the archives. The freedom of information commissioner has ruled in their favour on the appeal, and the commissioner has expressly said there is -- if I can find the particular section of the commissioner's rulings, I would be able to draw to the minister's attention the fact that the commissioner has looked at whether the release of this report would in any way influence the police investigation.

His determination is that it would not and that therefore the report should be released to the public and to the victims. So, Minister, I submit to you that any explanation that suggests this interferes with police investigation is simply unacceptable.

Minister, I suggest -- and I know you don't need reminding -- that yours is a government dedicated to zero tolerance of sexual harassment; yours is a government that swears to uphold the interests of those who cannot protect themselves. I know that --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the leader complete her question, please?

Mrs McLeod: You recognize how much courage it took on the part of these women to come forward with their allegations. I will tell you that these women feel that, from the time they have raised their issue, from the time they've brought forward their charges, they have had to fight the system in order to be heard. They believe the action your government has taken is, in fact, a protective coverup. I ask you to determine what possible justification you and your government can give to these women for now withholding this information.

Hon Mrs Boyd: It is our contention that we do not want to do anything to jeopardize the criminal cases that are going on, and it is the contention -- there is clearly a disagreement -- on the part of our government officials that this might in fact occur.

The information was all seized by the Waterloo Regional Police. The commissioner ordered that the report not be disclosed before October 21, and there are 30 days allowed for judicial review of that decision. We have decided we need to seek judicial review because we are concerned that the release of information -- and the former government opposite knows what can happen in terms of court proceedings when information is released prematurely -- that we have decided to seek that review in order to ensure that the courts maintain the integrity of the charges.

It is very important that those who have been victims of abuse see the judicial system working effectively on their behalf. If these issues were released, in our opinion, before those court proceedings are done, it could jeopardize those cases.

Mrs McLeod: This is a point of information for the House. I will forward to the minister pages 9 and 10 of the commissioner's report.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Before I follow up on the first time in the history of the government of Ontario that the requests of the information commissioner has been refused, which I found astounding in the answer from the minister, I --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To whom are you directing your question?

Mr Harris: I would like to direct a question to the Solicitor General. Yesterday's announcement that the OPP are set to join Metro Police in their protest against the government, against the Premier, against you, has added a new dimension to what I believe is a very unnecessary situation. I suggest to you that this is not the time for political posturing; this is not the time for a stand-off. The losers in this stand-off or posturing or battle, if you like, will ultimately be the public.

Recognizing the seriousness of the potential consequences of expanded job action, I ask you and your government to show some goodwill and finally meet, simply meet, with the police, before the situation escalates to the point where it could very easily get out of control. Will you do that?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): First of all, I'm pleased to indicate to the member opposite that in a discussion with the president of the Ontario Provincial Police Association, Grant Scharf, last evening, he indicated to me that any action taken by the association would not be of an illegal nature.

Secondly, as I'd indicated in previous responses, we have ongoing and regular meetings with the associations. My door presently is open to any discussions with respect to this matter, if it will be helpful.

Finally, the Premier is available as well, once the job action has been put on hold or removed.

1420

I think that's only appropriate. To ask the Premier to meet in the midst of an illegal job action is not appropriate and is not a fair kind of approach to be taken. But if that impediment is removed or that kind of conciliation is brought forward, he has indicated publicly to everyone, including the association last night in Midland, that he is quite willing, ready and anxious to meet with all associations and any chiefs of police who may feel it is appropriate to do so.

I think that's very fair and reasonable, and if others will depart from the position of this illegal action, I think we can get this matter resolved.

Mr Harris: Mr Solicitor General, to have the Premier of this province say he will not be the one to blink in this battle of wills I find incredible. The public needs a Premier who is willing to show leadership, who's willing to find consensus, who's willing to unite, not divide.

Mr Solicitor General, we're not talking about a job action requesting that you reverse something, that you take an action. We're faced with a job action asking to meet. Normally when there is a job action it is through meeting that it is resolved, and this simple request is for a meeting. That's all they're asking, and now we have a Premier who believes his own pride is more important than the public's interest to simply agree to meet.

You as Solicitor General, your government, your Premier, you have the power to solve this situation. You have the power to end the tensions. How long is this game of chicken going to last before members of this society, this province, the police, can simply have a meeting with their Premier?

Hon Mr Pilkey: As I indicated earlier, this job action is being dealt with by Chief McCormack and the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board, and that's properly where this matter should be dealt with.

It is not reasonable for people to demand a meeting with the Premier given they have placed a circumstance into an illegal job action. I think it's quite reasonable indeed for the Premier to indicate his absolute willingness to meet with any and all stakeholder groups at the cessation of that job action. As I have indicated, on an interim basis, if my offices can be of assistance with bringing this matter to a conclusion, my door is open to do so.

I think it's interesting to note that there have been claims, not by myself but by such associations as the Ontario Provincial Police Association, that this matter is at a very emotional and highly charged level. Even they felt they were being manoeuvred in this process by other police associations and, as I said, issued a bulletin that was quite stinging in its condemnation of the way they were being treated and the way other associations were handling this particular issue. It seems, however, they themselves have been caught up in this emotion as a result of the actions last evening.

I repeat, however, that the calm voices of reason are in fact ready to meet. The Premier is ready to meet. It will simply require them either to settle their circumstance with Chief McCormack or stop illegal job action and come forward to the province.

Mr Harris: I want to remind the Solicitor General that the job action is not against Chief McCormack. The job action is against you, the Premier of this province, the government.

This protest, as well, is not just about the use-of-force regulations. That is not at all what this job action is simply about. It's about the total lack of priority your government has given to our police officers.

I think it's very sad indeed when this attitude has led to a point where our police forces feel they have to issue an ultimatum to the Premier of this province and to the top cop of this province just to be able to meet with them.

Solicitor General, given that all they're asking for is a meeting, that it is through meeting that we want to resolve conflicts, not job action, not any other dispute resolution mechanism, I would ask you to reconsider and ask your Premier to reconsider his position, and I would ask you to relay to all of Ontario, including the police, the incredulous situation --

The Speaker: Would the leader complete his question, please.

Mr Harris: -- to give any sense of believability, that if Bob White were involved in a wildcat strike he would have to cease that wildcat strike before his phone would be answered by the Premier of this province. Tell me that with believability and credibility.

Hon Allan Pilkey: In response, I find it quite strange indeed that the leader of the third party would raise that kind of comment when he knows full well that at any time, outside of an illegal job action, our Premier would be prepared to meet with one and all. He knows that. I think that's a totally reasoned situation, notwithstanding the fact that this matter --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Pilkey: This job action, as I say, is by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association. The management in this particular dispute is the Metropolitan Toronto police board and its chief, Chief McCormack. The actions by the management are being properly taken and addressed with respect to this issue. But notwithstanding that, as I've indicated, my door is open and the door of the Premier is open to them upon the cessation of the illegal work action.

I found it interesting as well, though, in the Student Safe School Task Force held in North York to see students raising the question, "How do you expect students to obey the rules of their principals and teachers when authority figures like the policedon't obey the instructions of the police chief?" That was asked by a grade 12 student.

Mr Harris: That's right, that's the problem. That's the net result because you won't meet. Is that what you want? Is the idea to destroy the police, to destroy credibility, to destroy the dreams of youth? That's the net result because you won't meet.

1430

The Speaker: Order. Would the leader come to order, please.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I think this speaks to the fundamental question that has arisen in terms of people doing the proper thing in the proper way and in the proper order. I'm suggesting that if the proper steps are taken by the association, through the chief and the police services board, and once the proper steps are undertaken to remove this illegal action, then, properly, the Premier will in fact meet with these and other people.

The Speaker : New question, the member for Simcoe West.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): That's an incredible answer from a minister whose party leader used to chain himself to trees on Red Squirrel Road.

The Speaker: To whom is your question directed?

Mr Jim Wilson: And he won't even meet with police officers.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. The procedure we follow is that the member who is recognized will identify the minister to whom he wishes to direct a question and then in fact place the question.

HEALTH CARDS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, two months ago you said that you did not believe that thousands of health care cards were unaccounted for. On Tuesday of this week, you admitted that OHIP could not account for approximately 400,000 health cards and that the Health ministry had issued close to 12 million health cards in total.

Minister, either you were not being entirely frank in August or you have no idea what is occurring in your ministry. I asked you this question yesterday, and I'll ask it again today. Exactly when were you made aware that hundreds of thousands of health cards could not be accounted for, and what precisely did you do about it?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I don't recall the statement that's being attributed to me in August. The member might be able to clarify the circumstances. I know this issue has come up a number of times, in which I have said that I believe actions are being taken to curtail the problem. I may at times have indicated that I didn't think it was as large as what was being suggested. In the past, what was being suggested to me was that there were millions of excess numbers and that the problem was just as bad as it was under the old OHIP number situation, but that's quibbling.

In answer to the member's question, first of all, when I came into the portfolio and we became aware of the problems with respect to the backlog in registrations, we had to, on two occasions, extend the date for the end of the health card registration project. I remind people this was one that had been under way for over a year or more before we even came into government. It was a very lengthy project to convert all of the OHIP numbers into health cards.

During that period of time when we were looking at what was happening with respect to the cards being issued, I asked questions about what kind of procedure was in place around verification, around getting assurance that we were not going to have a problem down the road. I was informed at that point in time, and that would have been before July of last summer, and I can't tell you exactly at which meeting --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister complete her response, please.

Hon Ms Lankin: Mr Speaker, I understand and I know that I do give lengthy responses, but the kind of allegations that I think are implied in the question need to be responded to. I'll try very quickly to say that before the summer of last year, I became aware that the decision originally taken around the program was not to put in place a verification procedure upon application and that this would have to be done after distribution. I asked at that point in time to get some assurances about what those plans were. The initial review of those plans indicated to me that we needed more work to be done. I instructed that to happen, and progressively more measures have been put in place over the course of last summer.

Mr Jim Wilson: Minister, you continue to speak about the so-called verification mechanisms that you've put in place. Yesterday, I told you how a group of four Iranian citizens could rip off our health care system with fraudulent health cards. Minister, you should be aware that the woman who brought this matter to my attention contacted the office of Patricia Malcolmson, your assistant deputy minister for corporate management and support, on September 11, 1992. She was told that someone would call her back, and over a month later she's still waiting for that call back.

A woman from Peterborough who has left two messages in your office called yesterday to tell me that when she visited Trinidad last year, several citizens of Trinidad were boasting about their Ontario health cards and the superb health care treatment they receive in this province.

The Health ministry has issued about 1.5 million more health cards than Ontario's population.

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

Mr Jim Wilson: Minister, given that anyone in possession of a health card can access health care services in this province with no questions asked, what is your estimate of the total amount of taxpayers' dollars lost because of your inability to get a handle on this crisis?

Hon Ms Lankin: If I could start with some of the comments the member made, again, I want him to be clear on the numbers he's talking about. I know that when you get something that gets a few headlines and you get it rolling in this place, you're going to continue with it each day. I know we're talking about the grab for the 30-second clip, rather than trying to deal with a real, serious issue.

I would say to the member that yesterday we took immediate action to try and follow up on the issue he raised in the House with respect to the allegation of four Iranian citizens who travelled to Ontario to receive health services and illegally use a card.

We called his office. We asked questions specifically around who the individual woman had contacted within the ministry. His office, at that point in time, declined to give us any further information, I suppose so that we could keep it for the question for today. If you think the issue is so serious, cooperate with us in trying to get results.

There are a number of measures I have detailed with respect to what we have put in place in trying to verify the appropriate use of funds.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): It's Jim's fault. Jim should resign.

Interjections: Resign.

The Speaker: I have heard that phrase before once or twice. I would ask that members restore some calm.

Indeed, if it would be of assistance to any minister who feels that she or he has a detailed answer, detailed answers can be put on the order paper. I would ask the member to ask his brief final supplementary.

Mr Jim Wilson: I'll try to be brief. In regard to the allegations made by the minister, I suggest you check your fax machine. I faxed it to you this morning, all the information you requested. I rather anticipated her answer, Mr Speaker.

Minister, it's a sad indictment of your ability as an NDP minister when you have to look to the opposition party for solutions to your mismanagement of your ministry. You have said that the ministry has cancelled 1.2 million health card numbers which belong to dead people, are duplicates or are considered fraudulent. However, these cards are still in circulation and could be used by individuals who are simply hopping to different physicians.

Minister, have you ordered doctors to return fraudulent cards to the ministry? Have you set up a telephone hotline so that doctors who suspect fraud can verify the card number? Have you requested that doctors require two valid pieces of identification and that patients sign for the health services they have received? Have you requested that estates send back the cards of deceased persons?

Minister, have you implemented any of these measures to protect the taxpayers of Ontario?

Hon Ms Lankin: In terms of protecting the taxpayers of Ontario, in terms of better management of the health care system, I feel proud of the record of my accomplishments in that respect.

In the list of suggestions the member made or in the questions he asked in terms of what things we have done and what things we haven't done, in fact some of those things are either implemented or we are currently working on them. For example, I have suggested in answers to his questions and to the media that we are working on interactive technology with doctors to be able to do the very kind of verification in the doctor's office that he's talking about.

Those things don't happen overnight. There aren't computers in all doctors' offices. We're moving to try and get to that point, and I think we'll be able to respond in a number of these areas. The idea of signing for health services is one that I think has some merit. We've talked about maybe moving to both an expiry date and a birth date embossed on the card, something like a credit card, where there could be a signature put in place. Again, that takes the cooperation of the medical profession. We've had some discussions and we're moving in that direction.

There's one thing I do want to say to the member very directly in terms of lowering the rhetoric around this issue and trying to deal with the substance of it. I'd ask him to really carefully examine how he places this question and how he placed his allegations. He suggests that this is mismanagement by an NDP government. Let me take him back to the time when there were 25 million OHIP numbers in this province under the Tory government. It took the Liberals to start to clean it up, this government --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the minister take her seat, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. We did have a heating problem before. We don't have any lack of heat in this chamber now. Next question, the Leader of the Opposition.

1440

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Labour. Minister, once again I want to raise the issue of mass resignations from the Workplace Health and Safety Agency. You recognize, as we do, that the agency was created to permit labour and employer groups to have equal input into programs designed to cut down deaths and injuries in Ontario workplaces, but in the situation which resulted in these resignations, management representatives were not given time to comment on the key proposal for workplace health and safety training. In fact, the first time they met to discuss the specific proposal, they were told they had to vote on it that very same day.

Minister, how do you defend your actions, enforcing a vote that stripped management representatives of their right to even comment on the major issue you appointed them to deal with?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): Once again, the leader of the official opposition should get her facts straight. I didn't force them to vote on it whatsoever. There was a motion moved by one of the management members, seconded by another management member, to vote on the package, the certification training process, which is now five months behind time. I think it's important that we get that on stream. It's necessary in terms of the health and safety of workers in the workplace, and I find it difficult to understand how the member would suggest that we can let them go on talking for ever without a decision.

Mrs McLeod: It would seem that the minister is not debating the issue of whether or not management representatives on the agency were given adequate time to review or to discuss the training proposal. Clearly they were not.

The minister again today responds to the question of whether or not there was interference. I took time to review his comments in Hansard yesterday, in which the minister says, "There has never been any interference or authority exercised," and in which he says, "I reject her charge that we deliberately intervened."

The assistant deputy minister told the members of the agency that there was a strict deadline for passage of this proposal and that they could not make changes or modifications to it. That is clearly intervention, that is clearly interference.

I would ask the minister, in light of the fact that the resignation of these members leaves the future of the Workplace Health and Safety Agency very much in question, how will he now go forward with the training proposal, given the fact that the bipartite nature of this agency has now completely collapsed?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I would hope it doesn't make the leader of the official opposition happy that there are problems in a bipartite approach. I don't think it's collapsed at all. I think it's going to continue. I think there will be additional appointments to the board, and I think it will put in place, now that it has voted on it, a three-level training program, which is long overdue and which may help us reduce some of the accidents and deaths in the workplace in Ontario.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): This question's for the Minister of the Environment. Saving taxpayers' dollars has to be one of the major priorities of government. Government spending has to balance all options to find a cost-effective solution. Rail haul could save the province and Metropolitan Toronto millions of dollars, yet you, the minister, and Premier Rae continue to overlook the possibility of rail haul and its cost benefits.

You ignore the jobs it can produce in the north. You ignore the cost of having to place landfill sites in York, Durham and Peel, the most expensive land around Toronto. You ignore the importance of looking at all the alternatives, as would be possible under the Environmental Assessment Act.

My point today is that you're ignoring the huge cost of building a megadump. How can you save taxpayers' dollars? Therefore, how can you justify your deliberate refusal to allow a cost-effective waste solution to be examined, such as rail haul?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): I disagree with the member that hauling waste from the greater Toronto area to northern Ontario -- particularly, I suspect, to his preferred location in northern Ontario which is an abandoned mine half full of water -- is either cost-effective or good for the environment. I suspect that the member's question arises from a report in today's press that the taxpayers in Metro would save a great deal of money if their waste was hauled to northern Ontario. I have asked my staff to get a copy of the study upon which that allegation was based.

I want to say to the member that just last week a citizen's group in Durham, for example, made a submission to the region of Durham that said that if GTA waste was hauled to northern Ontario, it would cost the Durham taxpayers over $1 billion over time.

So there are assumptions, there are calculations, there is no agreement, but the bottom line for me is that what's best for the environment is for the GTA waste to be managed within the GTA.

Mr Cousens: It sure isn't answer period when you call it question period, because I asked a question and the minister has yet to really answer the question. It is totally infuriating when you come along and say, "Oh, you're just looking at one site up there." I'm saying that rail haul anywhere in the province can be an option for the government to look at, and you won't look at it. I'll tell you, it's stupid, stupid in the extreme. It has economic advantages and this government refuses to look at anything except what this minister or Bob Rae has decided upon.

I ask again a very fundamental cost question. People are now going to be forced to pay an awful lot more for their garbage because you're choosing only the greater Toronto area. You fail totally to provide --

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Listen to the north; they don't want the garbage.

Interjections.

Mr Cousens: I wish you guys would go and take a powder or eat another fish or go and do something with your time. Go and ask a question --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Would the member take his seat please.

Mr Cousens: Well, they're upset.

The Speaker: It appears to be mutual. I would invite the member to direct his question to the Chair and I would ask the members on the government side to exercise some restraint. Would the member please place his question.

Mr Cousens: This Minister of the Environment has failed to provide Metro and local municipalities with a cost analysis of the dumps and the dump selection process or who will get the fees. So again I ask, will you be fiscally responsible and allow rail haul to be put to a full environmental assessment? I say rail haul. Don't confuse it with one site. Will you allow rail haul to be put to a full --

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): You don't know what you're talking about. You want to --

Mr Cousens: Shut him up, would you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: That is not helpful. I would ask the member for Durham West to come to order. The question has been placed and I would invite the Minister of the Environment to give a response.

Mr Cousens: I am just finishing the question. I'll read it again. Will you be fiscally responsible and allow rail haul to be put to a full environmental assessment or will you continue to waste taxpayers' money? I didn't have a change to get that in.

Hon Mrs Grier: If the question is if I will allow the greater Toronto area's garbage to be hauled by rail anywhere across the province -- to Orillia, Halton, Nottawasaga, Plympton or Marmora -- the answer is no.

The Speaker: New question, the member for St Catharines-Brock.

Interjections.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Mr Speaker, you're taking up most of the time in question period.

The Speaker: You're right.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for St Catherines-Brock.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): For the benefit of the member for Markham, we're happy that the Minister of the Environment is not going to be shipping garbage into St Catharines-Brock, as we look after our own --

The Speaker: To whom is your question directed?

1450

HERITAGE LEGISLATION

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): My question is for the Minister of Culture and Communications. Madam Minister, I have many active heritage groups in my riding that are eager to see amendments to the current Ontario Heritage Act. As the experience of cities like London has shown, the need for this change in legislation is great. Indeed, the current act does not have the authority required to prevent important heritage resources from being destroyed. As you know, in the absence of clear provincial policies and direction municipalities have set their own ground rules. Unfortunately, in many cases this has resulted in a patchwork approach to heritage preservation across the province.

I know your ministry has been actively consulting to amend the Ontario Heritage Act. Could you please advise me when -- and I know the people in Niagara-on-the-Lake are really waiting with bated breath for this -- we can see some strong heritage legislation tabled in this House?

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): I am well aware of the situation with the member's riding. She has spoken to me a number of times on the situation. I think there are a number of situations in many of the ridings that the new heritage legislation would assist with. I must say that I've received letters not only from my own government members but also from opposition members regarding this issue.

I would just like to inform the House that the minister's advisory group, which was chaired by my previous parliamentary assistant, has given me its report on recommendations for new heritage legislation. That report was given to me in August, and at this time the ministry staff are reviewing that with a view to bringing recommendations for new legislation.

Ms Haeck: I thank the minister, but I know she will realize that I can't impress upon her strongly enough that these legislative amendments are long overdue. In my riding, individuals such as Tom Salter, who chairs the local architectural conservation advisory committee in Niagara, has said that preservation of historic buildings and sites will follow the lead of the environmental movement and become a mainstream issue in the next while.

Right now in St Catharines there is talk of major road construction through the historic downtown core which could threaten many century-old homes and sites. This has resulted in an outcry. In fact, 1,000 residents of St Catharines are fighting to preserve the area's heritage and trees. Clearly, this groundswell of public opposition has proven that heritage preservation is becoming a priority for members of the general public.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Is there a question in that?

Ms Haeck: There is, thank you. Madam Minister, will you make a commitment that, through initiatives such as the heritage act amendments, heritage preservation will be given the priority it deserves?

Hon Mrs Haslam: The member has outlined a number of long-outstanding problems and we are all aware of various areas that have these types of problems. As I've gone out into the community, I must agree that there is a groundswell of interest out there. We're looking for legislation to address those concerns, with an ability to identify, protect, interpret and use the heritage resources in ways that benefit both the heritage and the economy, because I must remind everyone that one third of tourist locations in Ontario are heritage buildings and sites. So when I say the economy, I do mean the economy.

As you know, the government has a busy legislative agenda, and as part of my considerations of options on how to proceed I will be talking to my opposition critics about ways that we can work together to proceed in an expeditious way towards new legislation.

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Labour. I think it's an appropriate question today, as our gallery is filled with young people. It's about young people and jobs.

The minister will be aware that a report that his ministry puts out came out just a few days ago, and all of us should take a good look at these numbers; it's the youth unemployment. In the rest of Canada, the number of unemployed young people dropped. In Ontario, the number of unemployed young people went up almost 25% over the same period last year.

We used to have a significantly lower unemployment rate among young people. The Minister of Labour will be aware that the unemployment rate among young people in Ontario is now 20% higher than it is in the rest of the country. Ontario is becoming a "have not" province. My question to the Minister of Labour is this: You're aware of these figures, Minister. What are you, as Minister of Labour, doing to create jobs for these young people?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I think the member across the way knows that the specific role of the Ministry of Labour is not to create the jobs for people in the province. We try to set the conditions they work under, we try to have something to do with the training programs and we try to deal with the economic circumstances that have seen Ontario, as an industrial province, hit harder than any other province in the country.

In spite of that, I think the member knows, and knows well, that we put more money into youth programs and the Ontario youth program this summer than ever before in the province's history.

Mr Phillips: It's time to get on to some action. I'll say to you as directly as I can: You proceed with Bill 40, as you're going to do next week, and it will do more to lose jobs in this province. I guarantee you that. You can't wash your hands of this. You can't say it's other ministries. It's you, Minister, who has to create the climate to ensure that we do see jobs created for our young people.

I'd say your job has been a failure. These are the numbers in September, Minister: The unemployment rate for our young people in the province of Ontario is now 20% higher than it is in the rest of the country. Who would ever have thought it? Would any of us in this Legislature think that Ontario's unemployment rate would be 20% higher among young people now than it is in the rest of the country?

I'll say again to the Minister of Labour that it is your job to create an environment where jobs are created. What hope do these young people have, what hope of programs, Minister? Will you outline specifically today what you are doing to create the climate where we will see jobs created for these young people?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the member across the way is wrong when he refers to Bill 40. I know that is the attack the opposition has been taking, but the intent of Bill 40, as the member should know by this time, is that we are trying to establish a climate where there is involvement of workers in the workplace as well as business. We're trying to make sure that if they desire -- it's not automatic but if they desire -- they have the right to organize --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Maybe that's the intent but it's not working.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: -- they have the right to seek decent wages and they have the right as well to have some say in the decisions that affect them directly in the workplace. That's what the intent of Bill 40 is. We think it will help the situation in Ontario.

1500

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the minister responsible for disability issues, and I hope this will be one question this minister will answer. She always refers my questions.

As the PC advocate for disabled persons, I have tried to help many families whose developmentally disabled children, upon turning 21, have been cut off from the educational system. These young adults and their families urgently need community support, but sadly, support services often don't exist for adults.

For instance, there are 105 adults on the waiting list for vocational programs in Mississauga. Many more can't even get on the list, because the lists have had to be closed. There are also 68 Mississauga families waiting for respite care. I ask the minister, why is your government leaving developmentally disabled adults and their families to fend for themselves? Whatever happened to your supposed commitment to developmentally disabled persons?

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister Responsible for Disability Issues): Thank you very much for the question. I hope you can hear my answer today because I am suffering from laryngitis. I would like to tell the honourable member opposite that yes, you are right: Previous governments have not addressed this particular concern.

I'm very pleased to say that my colleagues the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Minister of Education have worked together very hard to set up an interministerial committee that is addressing these issues. There is a special role now between the two ministries to make sure that the continuum of care continues for adults with developmental disabilities. There will be a special assistant deputy minister who will take over that particular area of work. We're very, very pleased that we are moving very quickly on this particular area and there is a special working relationship now between the Minister of Education and the Minister of Community and Social Services to make sure that people do not slip between the cracks.

Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, it's absolutely sickening to listen to this government, of any party in this province, that was full of platitudes, that it was the only party who ever cared about people. They have demonstrated absolute uncaring without any kind of commitment for people with special needs. Try to tell the people in my community, or any community in this province, who are facing the kinds of problems these parents are with developmentally disabled youngsters, that you're setting up another committee. Try to tell them that.

Many developmentally disabled adults have elderly parents who are under incredible strain caring for their children without help from vocational programs or respite care. This is the government that has $97 million to spend on new day care spaces while there are existing spaces in the private sector.

I would like to know why this government is making the situation worse. The government gave community living associations a 0.5% funding increase while it took away $3 million from the vocational programs. When will this minister live up to her obligation to ensure that developmentally disabled adults and their families receive the support they desperately need, not another committee? They need help.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I realize that my voice is very soft today because of laryngitis and I apologize for that, but I want you to listen very carefully on the opposite side.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Mr Speaker, it's very difficult and I know that this concern is very real. I think I would like to answer this so that people could hear me, and I can't shout, so please bear with me.

I think the member opposite did not hear the rest of my answer, and I can understand that. Today there's been an awful lot of to-ing and fro-ing and that is difficult, but there is a special ADM in Education who is in charge of making sure that people will not fall between the cracks, who is working with the Ministry of Community and Social Services to make sure that we find the solutions that are needed.

Unfortunately, the previous government did not address these needs. They set up the program so that there was a disruption of services, so that there was this constant confusion.

I really think if you look carefully at the work the Minister of Community and Social Services is doing, what the Minister of Education is working on --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Ziemba: -- that we are finding those solutions and the solutions will be there. I know that you'll be interested in hearing them as they come through.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Mark Morrow (Wentworth East): My question is to the Minister of the Environment.

First of all, Madam Minister, let me thank you for not putting Toronto's garbage in Wentworth East. I appreciate that very much.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): They got you instead.

Mr Morrow: That was pretty good. Minister, as you know through our many discussions, I've been following the proposed new Highway 6 project. My constituents and I both feel this project will help the Hamilton-Wentworth region deal with population growth and provide a needed infrastructure to manage future economic activity. It would improve accessibility to the Hamilton Civic Airport, manage traffic growth in the towns in the Nanticoke area, and I could go on and on, but I would just like to know from the minister the current status of this project in her ministry.

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): I'm grateful that the member does not want the greater Toronto area's garbage. There may well be some quarries in his area that the members opposite would like to see used for that purpose. I disagree.

Let me say to him that in respect to his very real interest in the progress on new parts of Highway 6, I'm glad to be able to tell him that on September 3 of this year we accepted the environmental assessment submission. At that point we go into a second review period during which anyone who has previously made a written submission on the project can request an environmental hearing. That period of review ended on October 6, 1992, and I can share with the member the fact that four submissions were received. There are some outstanding concerns that have been raised in those submissions and we will do our very best to address them as soon as possible.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for oral questions has expired. Motions? Petitions?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a motion, Mr Speaker, I'd like to file with you. I have a motion I'd like to file with the table under the heading of motions and I would like to read it now to you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: We don't have a provision for that in our standing orders.

Mr Elston: No, it just says that the government House leader may, and it doesn't exclude the rest of us from also introducing motions at this time.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): That's my reading of it.

The Speaker: Wait a minute. I will confer with the table. I don't believe you can present a motion.

While the word may be "may", the practice of the chamber is that only the government House leader is the person to present motions to the House.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): It doesn't say we may not, either.

Mr Elston: It's not exclusive, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: But the practice of the House has been that only the government House leader has the opportunity to present motions and so I must go by that practice that we've had.

Mr Elston: You always go by practice.

The Speaker: We're not about to change that particular practice.

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker -- not on this issue, on another matter which has concerned me somewhat. It has to do not so much -- well, it does have to do with the ruling that you made the other day about not being able to intervene with respect to a matter that we think is a violation of the standing orders in conducting business in the committee.

It has to do in a sense with your decision not to intervene on behalf of the minority in the committee when we were dealing with the amendments that were deemed to have been read. I have to ask, as a matter of privilege under standing order 21, can you advise in what way I can have my issue of privilege addressed by you and by the House in a formal manner to find out how a minority represented in a committee can ensure that in fact its privileges to be heard on amendments dealing with a particularly important bill, in this case Bill 40, are debated reasonably and at least in a manner which would allow us to know the content of the amendments themselves and the effect that they have on a bill?

I raise it in this way because, to be quite honest, we are now faced with or confronted by the prospect of going into committee of the whole concerning Bill 40, in which the bill is now reprinted with all of the amendments which were passed during the committee stage but about which we will have no time -- in essence, no time -- to talk about the real reason behind the movement, the deemed reading --

Interjection.

Mr Elston: It's a point of privilege. I'm asking for direction.

Mr Speaker, I'm asking you, since we will not have a chance now in committee of the whole really to address any of those motions and since we will have no chance whatsoever to address the essence of the amendments that have been brought forward by the Tories and the Liberals in relation to this bill because of the two sessional days, where is it that I can ask for a formal ruling as to how the rights and interests of the minority can be protected in this House?

I just want to remind you of how you said you were precluded from intervening in the committee orders. You advised that only upon an address from the Chair of a committee at the behest of a majority of the committee members could you look into whether or not the standing orders had indeed been violated or even from the standpoint, I take it by extrapolation, that you would be required to refuse to investigate whether or not the privileges of a member had been overruled in the committee merely because the members in minority could never get the committee Chair directed to report to you.

1510

Mr Speaker, my point of privilege is this: We have here, as members, individually and collectively, the privilege of examining each piece of legislation in a way that is set down by the rules here. That's clear. If we are unable to discuss in principle amendments which come to us -- and in this case, the standing orders are clear that we have a right to know the essence of the item upon which we vote -- at what forum, in which way, can the minority in this House be assured that their rights as members and representatives of their constituencies are addressed? I want you to tell me how before we get into --

The Speaker: Okay. To the member for Bruce, I understand his concern. As the member will know, the ruling that I gave the other day was based on our standing orders and on our practice. The member is absolutely correct that in a majority government situation, the committee will enjoy a majority of government members. Hence, a report, to come forward from a majority, would require some support from at least one or more of the government members.

Since that situation is based upon our standing orders, then in order to accomplish what the member wishes to accomplish, the proper committee for him to see would be the Legislative Assembly committee, which normally deals with changes to the rules, so that he could effect the kind of change which he is seeking. That's the only place, I believe, that I can properly direct him. To do otherwise would be -- I don't know of any other way, but certainly in consultation with the table, if we can find some other process that would be of assistance to the member in altering our procedures, I'm more than pleased to do that and to give him information.

PETITIONS

COUNTY RESTRUCTURING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition that says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Minister of Municipal Affairs has seen fit to ignore the council of the township of Tiny and their plea for reconsideration of boundary line changes within the municipality; and

"Whereas the minister has stated that restructuring within the county of Simcoe will be implemented,

"Now, therefore, the taxpayers of the township of Tiny find it necessary to band together and lobby against the implementation of the restructuring of the county of Simcoe.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to refrain from passing the County of Simcoe Act until the provincial government deals with the township of Tiny in a fair and equitable manner."

That's 344 names, and I've attached my name to it.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): I have a petition signed by the residents not only of Kitchener but the residents of the city of Waterloo as well. The petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I will, in the interests of time, skip the whereases. It simply says to pass Bill 40, An Act to amend the Ontario Labour Relations Act, without further delay.

STABLE FUNDING

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition here signed by a number of farmers from the Chatham area, from the Durham area, from the Wingham area, from the Bruce area, and pretty well all over Ontario. Their main objections, in summary -- for the final whereas, they're opposed to the stable funding issue and the direct mandatory affiliation to one of the farm organizations, and they are asking for a vote.

I do affix my signature to it.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have two petitions here which are identical, one of 195 and another one of 54. The petition reads as follows:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition to wide-open Sunday business. I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on retailers, retail employees and their families. The proposed amendment to the Retail Business Holidays Act of Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I too affix my signature to this.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): Like my colleague from Kitchener, I also have a petition:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Labour Relations Act was last updated in 1975; and

"Whereas the Labour Relations Act should reflect the needs of today's workplace and today's workforce;

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

"To pass Bill 40, An Act to amend the Ontario Labour Relations Act, without further delay."

This petition is signed by residents of Kitchener and Elmira, and I affix my signature.

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature.

AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I have a petition from several thousand people in King township that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly:

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

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

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

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

I've signed this petition, and it is signed by several thousand people.

ABORTION

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): My petition reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, ask the government of Ontario to stop the killing of the unborn."

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This is a petition which is obviously getting growing support in the province of Ontario. It reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with this and I affix my signature to it.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I have a petition signed by a number of people from Kitchener and Waterloo. It's addressed:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Labour Relations Act was last updated in 1975; and

"Whereas the Labour Relations Act should reflect the needs of today's workplace and today's workforce;

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

"To pass Bill 40, An Act to amend the Ontario Labour Relations Act, without further delay."

I affix my signature to this.

LANDFILL

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I have a petition here to the Lieutenant Governor:

"We, the North York Astronomical Association, strongly object to the placing of the landfill site in King township. Our club regularly uses the property located at the 12th Concession and the 19 Side Road, with club buildings and instruments installed at this location. The activity at a dump of this size will make club operations impossible due to lighting and dust destroying visibility needed for astronomical observing and research."

That's signed by all the members of the North York Astronomical Association, and I have affixed my signature thereto.

1520

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition addressed to the Legislature of Ontario from 29 residents of not just Middlesex, but from London and the city of Windsor. They have asked that the arbitrator's report, Mr John Brant's report, be set aside because it does not reflect the expressed wishes of the majority of those who participated in the arbitration hearings in London and Middlesex, it awards far too extensive an area of land to the city of London, it will jeopardize agricultural land, the viability of Middlesex county and it will jeopardize our rural way of life.

I have signed my name to this petition.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a petition which shows that there is a growing movement across the province.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have signed this petition in accordance with the rules and because I heartily agree with it.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition here to the members of the provincial Parliament.

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

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

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

It's been signed by the Kingsmills from Beaverton, Grace Hemmingberg from Sutton West, Edna Shier from Cannington, the St Johns from Pefferlaw, as well as the Goodhands from Beaverton. I sign this as well.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have a petition here.

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, oppose Bill 40 and draw attention to the following:

"We object to the government's assumption that the only good workplace is a unionized workplace.

"We believe the balance of power is already tilted in favour of labour and that further tinkering will result in fewer investment dollars being spent in Ontario, loss of jobs and revenue and an increase of tension between labour and business.

"We believe that Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession and that employers are already being challenged with existing and proposed legislation.

"We, the citizens of Ontario, did not ask for these changes.

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that Bill 40 be revoked immediately."

That's been signed by several hundred people in Kitchener-Waterloo and the rest of Waterloo North, and I affix my signature hereto.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

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

I've affixed my signature. It's signed by 13 citizens.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have another petition here from the Greater Toronto Home Builders Association, that's been signed by 330 men and women from 45 companies.

"Whereas independent, non-partisan economic studies have concluded that the proposed amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act will contribute significantly to job losses in the province; and

"Whereas the proposed amendments will cause a dramatic decline in investment in Ontario; and

"Whereas the proposed amendments will undermine any possibility for a meaningful economic recovery in the province;

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

"That the government of Ontario declare a moratorium on the proposed amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act in the best interests of all the people of Ontario."

I affix my signature here too.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS AYANT TRAIT A L'ÉDUCATION

On motion by Mr Cooke, on behalf of Mr Silipo, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 88, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to Education / Loi modifiant certaines lois ayant trait à l'éducation

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wish to speak to the motion moved, on first reading.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): There is no debate on first reading.

Mr Elston: No, not on the bill, on the motion. He's moved and I want to speak on the motion.

The Speaker: It's a non-debatable motion, but we can call it. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Interjections: Carried.

Interjection: No.

The Speaker: I heard one no. All those in favour will please say "aye." All opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.

HEALTH PROTECTION AND PROMOTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA PROTECTION ET LA PROMOTION DE LA SANTÉ

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

Bill 89, An Act to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection et la promotion de la santé

EILPRO HOLDINGS INCORPORATED ACT, 1992

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

Bill Pr49, An Act to revive Eilpro Holdings Incorporated.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): With the indulgence of the House, we have one piece of paper which should be read. Pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for York Mills has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Labour concerning Bill 40 hearings. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

Orders of the day.

1530

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): The fifth order.

Acting Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): Fifth order, committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Chair, I would like to give notice to the committee of the whole House of a motion that I intend to introduce with respect to business which is on the order paper to be conducted at some future date in the committee of the whole House not yet to be named.

I wish to give notice by reading this to you so that when the issue is raised by way of introduction of the business to be conducted in the committee of the whole House, you will be aware of this motion, in order for us to consider whether or not we can fully move through the business of the day. While I will read this for you, I will make sure that copies are provided to you as Chair of the committee of the whole House, and I will provide as well a copy to my friend the government House leader and somebody, probably the House leader or his designate, with respect to the material as well.

I'm told that my microphone was not on in the beginning, but basically what I will do is read through the notice that I give you with respect to the order of business which is scheduled on the order paper for conduction here in committee of the whole House so that you will be aware of the fact that there is other business intended, at least by the private members of this House, by the minority members of this House. I will now proceed, with your blessing, to read through my motion so that you may know the context in which this point of order and this motion are to be explained to the table.

I move that Bill 40, the Labour Relations and Employment Statute Law Amendment Act, 1992, be returned to the standing committee on resources development because the committee did not debate the essence of amendments, as evidenced by the following script used by the committee Chair, which reads as follows:

"Shall section 1 of the bill carry?

"Shall section 2 of the bill carry?

"Shall section 3 of the bill carry?

"Shall section 4 of the bill carry?

"Shall section 5 of the bill, as amended, carry?

"Shall section 6 of the bill carry?

"Shall the deferred PC amendment to section 7(2)(4) carry?

"Shall section 7 of the bill, as amended, carry?

"Shall section 8 of the bill, as amended, carry?

"Shall section 9 of the bill carry?

"Shall the Liberal amendment to section 10 of the bill (section 9.2 of the act) carry?

"Shall section 10 of the bill, as amended, carry?

"Shall the government amendment to section 11 of the bill (subsection 10(3) of the act) carry?

"Shall section 11 of the bill ["as amended," if applicable] carry?

"The Liberal motion to strike out section 12 of the bill is not in order.

"The PC motion to strike out section 12 of the bill is not in order.

"Shall the PC amendment to section 12 of the bill (subsection 11.1(1.1) of the act) carry?

"Shall the PC amendment to section 12 of the bill (subsections 11.1(2) to (7) of the act) carry?

"Shall the government amendment to section 12 of the bill (subsection 11.1(2) of the act) carry?

"Shall the PC amendment to section 12 of the bill" --

The Chair (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Please take your chair.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I wasn't at the committee. I don't know what happened. I've got to hear this.

The Chair: Order, please. My responsibility is to chair the debate on Bill 40.

Mr Elston: No, it has not been called yet. It has not been called.

The Chair: Please listen to what I'm saying. My responsibility is to consider the bill as it is reported to me. There are certain things you can do. I can either report the bill as amended, I can report the bill without amendment or the bill will not be reported at all. Unless the House gives me different direction, I have no alternative other than to go ahead with this debate.

Hon David S. Cooke: If I might, could the Speaker indicate to me which order we are on right now?

The Chair: I think you all observed that I came to the table. I took over the responsibility from the Speaker. Normally, the procedure is for me to call orders of the day. Prior to my saying this the member for Bruce stood up, and as any Speaker would do, I had to listen to what Mr Elston had to say. I listened attentively to what he had to say and I reported that my responsibility at this instance is to consider the bill, whatever bill is to be introduced.

You have the floor and please --

Hon Mr Cooke: I would ask that we deal with Bill 40, which is the order of the day.

The Chair: So be it.

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

Consideration 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.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): In discussions we have had with the opposition House leaders, I'd ask that the time be divided equally this afternoon and that any divisions on amendments that take place be stacked until the end of the second day in committee of the whole House on Bill 40.

The Chair (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Before we start, please pay attention to what I'm about to read:

"That two sessional days shall be allotted to further consideration of the bill in the committee of the whole House. All amendments proposed to be moved to the bill shall be filed with the Clerk of the assembly by 4 pm on the last sessional day on which the bill is considered in the committee of the whole House. Any divisions required during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in the committee of the whole House shall be deferred until 5:45 pm on the last sessional day that the bill is to be considered in the committee of the whole House. At 5:45 pm on that sessional day, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee of the whole House shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto and report the bill to the House. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put, the members called in once and all deferred divisions taken in succession."

I hope everybody understands that the time is to be split equally among the three parties.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): A point of clarification on that, Mr Chair: I have in my hand the motions, the PC, Liberal and government amendments, that are here. If we are in agreement to split the time equally, then I'm assuming that each member in each caucus could speak to any or all of the amendments that are tabled as opposed to going through one at a time. Is that agreeable to the PCs?

The Chair: If the committee agrees to that, sure, we will agree: 45 minutes for each party and then of course the debate will continue the next day, which is Tuesday of next week.

Are there any questions, comments or amendments and, if so, to which sections of the bill?

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): You're the guys who moved these --

The Chair: Order, please.

1540

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Chair, we would like to give notice that the sections to be amended are the same ones we filed in committee. Although I haven't been consulting with all the Conservatives and since they haven't indicated, I presume that they likewise are filing amendments that were not dealt with in committee, so that all those sections will again be the subject matter of discussion and filing of amendments.

Mr Stockwell: That's okay, yes.

The Chair: The member for Bruce, do you wish to start the debate, or the member for Mississauga East?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd just like to request that the ministry staff be entitled to sit at the --

The Chair: Yes, of course.

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I would like to speak on the preamble of the bill and I would like to ask, what is the reason the NDP government is upset with the preamble as it now is stated in the present legislation?

I find it difficult that in this horrific economic climate, with plants closing daily, people losing jobs by the hundreds, the NDP can find the following to be offensive -- this is the preamble in the existing law -- "Whereas it is in the public interest of the province of Ontario to further harmonious relations" -- and I underline "harmonious" -- "between employers and employees by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions as the freely designated representatives of employees."

When you read that, the present legislation wants harmonious relationships between employers and employees and between the representatives of employers and the representatives of employees. Yet this government finds these words somehow not to be in tune with what it wants to achieve. They want to replace the preamble with a purpose clause. I just want to read the first objective of the purpose clause, "To ensure that workers can freely exercise the right to organize by facilitating the right of employees to choose, join and be represented by a trade union of their choice and to participate in the lawful activities of the trade union."

They're got four other points in the purpose clause, but this first one seems to be a little bit at odds with some of the correspondence I have been receiving. For instance, I have a letter from the Ontario Nurses' Association, a union with 55,000 members, which wants to be recognized or accredited by Bill 40. I want to read a couple of excerpts from the letter written to me on October 7 and signed by Mrs Sheila Richardson, who is responsible for the area I represent for the Ontario Nurses' Association.

"On September 25th, ONA met with the Ministry of Labour to discuss our concerns and the need to be recognized as having 'craft bargaining status.' At this time the government very obviously passed the buck and suggested that ONA should meet with the Ontario Federation of Labour and if they agreed with our proposed amendment, then the government would put it forward."

If I read the purpose clause again, it says, "To ensure that workers can freely exercise the right to organize." The Ontario Nurses' Association wants to exercise this right that the purpose clause is supposed to give it, and yet what happens? The government tells the Ontario Nurses' Association that it has to get the agreement of another labour body. If that labour body agreed with it, then the government would agree with it. Is that freedom of choice as explained in this first objective of the purpose clause?

I would like to quote further from Mrs Richardson's letter. She says:

"It is my opinion the government is shirking its responsibility in making the decision and trying to place the responsibility for it on the OFL. Let me ask you this: Was it the OFL touring the province and accepting submissions with the proposed amendments to Bill 40 or was it the government?"

If it was the OFL, then the OFL has the right to decide whether the Ontario Nurses' Association should or should not be accredited under Bill 40, but if it was the government, it has no right to slough this decision off on to the OFL.

She goes on further to state:

"I would like to know why ONA's proposal is contingent on OFL agreement. Is it a requirement that the ONA join the ranks of the OFL in order to have a voice that is listened to? If this is the case, it seems clearly discriminatory to me and against basic human rights." These are the words of Mrs Sheila Richardson.

I'm asking again, if the purpose clause is there to allow workers to freely exercise the right to organize, why is this purpose clause excluding the right of the Ontario Nurses' Association to organize under Bill 40?

I would like to go on further and say that Bill 40 has raised a storm of controversy in the business community -- not just in the labour community but in the business community. I have met with small business groups and with labour groups throughout my riding and I have yet to meet somebody who is completely at ease with what is happening with Bill 40. If they are in favour of Bill 40, they are questioning the timing; if they are opposed to Bill 40, they are questioning what it will accomplish. I think what is important in this climate is not what I as an individual member think, what my party thinks, what the minister thinks or what the government thinks; in this economic downturn it is important that those people who invest, the investors, are heard and are listened to.

Because of the shortage of time, I would just like to quote a short piece from the Toronto Star to show how the business community feels. "Traumatized Business Psyche Puts Brake on Ontario Recovery." I think the important words are these: "It is difficult to escape the conclusion that what is happening here relates more to the Ontario psyche then it does to the Canadian, US or world economies. We have an Ontario economy in deep trauma." This is by Peter Campbell in the Toronto Star of October 11.

The First Deputy Chair (Mr Dennis Drainville): Does the minister have any response?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: It's my intention to respond later as we get a number of issues together, or we'll have very few that we'll be responding to.

The First Deputy Chair: Any discussion?

1550

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I'm pleased to join in this debate this afternoon. I think it is very important at the outset to again remind the minister and the government of some of the fundamental concerns we have with this bill, fundamental concerns around some of the principles, in particular and specifically concerns about why we are bringing this bill to the House at this time.

We know, as my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has pointed out on more than one occasion, that we are deep into a recession. We have asked for reports from the government as to why this legislation is needed. We've asked them for impact studies in terms of what will be the effects of this legislation. On all those counts, we have not been able to receive any particular arguments that give us any understanding as to why this bill is being presented. We also recognize that in terms of the business climate, the economic climate, in the province, we've heard again and again and again about the negative impacts that this will have in terms of job creation, in terms of the expansion of plants and equipment, and in terms of new investment that will come into this province.

We know, from the attempts by the government to alter the role of the Ontario Labour Relations Board and its attempt to change the nature of the purpose clause, that what they are looking for here is a fundamental change in the labour-management balance. Again, for what reason? From what we have seen, there is no need to make major changes, in that the climate in Ontario, by and large, over the last number of years has been a very positive one. In fact, in the latest statistics, which are published in the Ontario Economic Outlook, we see in table 27 on page 82 this statistic, which I think is very significant: person-days lost due to strikes and lockouts. In 1992 we are at the lowest that we have ever been. In 1991 it was also low.

What, then, is the purpose? What is it that we're seeking to achieve by this particular bill? Frankly, and we've said this before, it appears as though the reason for this bill has been simply to meet a promise to the union leaders.

We have argued and continue to argue that it is not just that the business community finds this bill to be bad policy -- bad economic policy, bad labour policy. In terms of the workers, it is not good policy, because what it's going to mean is fewer jobs, fewer companies expanding, fewer companies coming into this province, so that in that context, there will be fewer jobs. This does not help workers.

As the member for Mississauga North has put forward in leading our discussion on this debate, what we are seeking is a balance. I would have to say that we were particularly upset that at the request of the member, who was not able to be here today for personal reasons, the government chose to insist that we begin the debate today and not wait until next week. I place that on the record because I think that in the case of the member for Mississauga North he has argued very persuasively and very effectively the reasons why there need to be fundamental and substantive changes.

We've mentioned the purpose clause. Another issue that has been of concern to us is the whole way in which certification is provided for in the government bill. We have been concerned about what the government bill will do with respect to private property and the ability to picket on private property. We have been particularly concerned around the issue of replacement workers. In all cases, it seems to us that what has happened here is that there has been an attempt by the government to alter the balance.

What we all seek in labour-management relations is an equal playing field. No one has argued that there is not an appropriate and proper place for unions. History shows us why they are needed and why they are there. But it also shows us that there are rights that the business community has. Those rights are important, and we are always seeking to balance those rights. If the worker has the right, as he or she does, to remove labour, then the business person equally has a right to ensure that his company continues to function and to operate. With the provisions that are being made here in this bill, the government is making it more difficult for the business person to operate, and that is an imbalance that we feel is fundamentally unsound.

But at the root of these changes and at the root of where many people in this province -- not just business people -- are seeing a concern is around the business and economic climate that this bill brings forward. What they're saying is simply this: At a time of recession, at a time of the impact from the free trade agreement, at a time when world trade patterns are changing dramatically, it makes no sense to bring in legislation such as this which will further alter that climate.

What that does is say to the business community that we're not interested in its investment, that this province is not a good place in which to invest. Surely, the message we want to send is precisely the opposite.

That's why the purpose clause, even with the cosmetic change that the government proposed in committee, does not adequately reflect what we believe should be the goal of labour legislation in this province, which is to ensure that labour and management can coexist together, that there will be investment, that there will be job creation in this province.

For those reasons, we feel profoundly that Bill 40 should not pass.

The First Deputy Chair: Does the honourable minister have any response?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Not at this point in time.

The First Deputy Chair: I recognize the honourable member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: On a point of interest and not as part of the debate, I wonder if the minister would consider responding as we go rather than just letting everyone talk and then we sit through a 45-minute recital of his views on the bill. We'd like some answers and I'm sure the public would like some answers that are in context to the questions that are being put by each of the members in their short statements.

The First Deputy Chair: I have indicated to the minister that he has an opportunity to respond. If he chooses to respond, he can.

Further discussion?

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Today we're involved in once again bringing forward our amendments to Bill 40, and once again the Ontario PC Party will be submitting 94 amendments which we hope will contribute to making changes to Bill 40 which will help to improve the workplace and which will contribute to the cooperation and the harmony that the government has indicated it's looking for.

We are putting forward the amendments today in the hope that we have been able to represent the views of all Ontarians. We've looked at the input of the professional groups, the business groups, the children's aid societies, the municipalities and the school boards, just to name a few, and we certainly do hope that the government will give very serious consideration to the amendments we are proposing.

I'd like to speak first to one of the amendments we are proposing and that is the amendment which would remove the reference to agriculture from the bill. This is subsection 4(2) of the bill.

As you know, in January the Minister of Labour established the Task Force on Agricultural Labour Relations. That task force had a mandate to advise the government on an appropriate course of action for the workers who were involved in the agricultural sector.

In June of last year the task force unanimously recommended that the extension of organizing rights to farm workers be within the framework of a separate agricultural labour relations act.

On August 27, the Minister of Labour announced that the government had accepted all of the recommendations of the task force and he asked the task force to advise the government on the specifics of an agricultural labour relations bill by early this fall. We believe that as a result of the discussions of the task force, any reference and all references to agriculture should be removed from Bill 40. We also raise this amendment to remove the reference to agriculture from the bill because we understand that at the present time the discussions of the task force are perhaps not proceeding as smoothly as they may.

1600

I'd like to remind this government that, in contrast to the reception given to the task force report, the farming community in Ontario does not welcome Bill 40. If adopted, the relevant amendments would transfer the prerogative of applying the Ontario Labour Relations Act to agriculture from the Legislature to the minister acting by regulation.

There is strong opposition from farmers in Ontario to Bill 40, and the opposition is there for two important reasons: First, Bill 40 circumvents the authority and discretion of the Ontario Legislature on a fundamental matter of labour-market policy. Application of a labour relations regime to an entire sector of the economy is not an administrative matter to be left to the best judgement of the minister of the day. Generally, the Legislature, not the Lieutenant Governor in Council, should decide to whom statutory protection and responsibilities apply.

The second reason farmers in this province object to Bill 40 is because the amending provisions of Bill 40 signal a lack of faith in the ability of the task force to develop a workable labour relations regime for the farm workplace. The apparent mistrust undermines the process and compromises its ability to achieve consensus. So I would hope that the government would remove any reference to agriculture from the bill, not only to this subsection 4(2), but also in subsection 4(4) of the bill.

The next amendment I would like to speak to -- and I'm just going to pick a few amendments, because time is not going to allow more -- is subsection 7(2.4) of the bill. This amendment would add nursing to the list of professions. The other professions presently included are architecture, dentistry, engineering, land surveying and law. We are suggesting that registered and graduate nurses be added to that particular subsection.

As you know, and as I indicated yesterday, the Ontario Nurses' Association has asked to be added to the list of professions so that it can have a bargaining unit consisting solely of employees who are members of their profession. They want the right to restrict their organizing activities to members of the nursing profession. The female-dominated profession of nursing deserves to be added to this list of professions so that nursing has a guaranteed right akin to craft bargaining unit status.

The Ontario Nurses' Association has requested this inclusion because its membership is currently limited to registered and graduate nurses and it wishes to maintain that. Employers are taking the tactic before the labour relations board that non-nurses, such as social workers employed as home care case workers, should be included in nursing bargaining units, knowing full well that ONA will have to withdraw its application for certification, as its membership is restricted to registered and graduate nurses.

Nurses are looking to maintain their existing members. They are not looking to organize workers traditionally represented by other unions, such as OPSEU or CUPE.

At this point, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour why he objects to our amendment in respect to the inclusion of registered and graduate nurses.

The First Deputy Chair: Does the minister have any response?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I'm going to respond briefly to the first few speakers who have been up, and then we'll try to keep rotation going; I'll try to come in after there's been a round each time.

First, why is the government proceeding with the purpose clause? That was raised, I think, by the member for Mississauga East, John Sola.

The current purpose clause says it's in the interests of the province of Ontario for workers to be able to have the right to organize, something I've been proud of for an awful lot of years, but it has done absolutely nothing in terms of the ability of workers who are excluded from the act to organize or to resolve some of the problems of involvement that workers in the province of Ontario have wanted to involve themselves in.

With the purpose clause, which is intended to give some direction to the act, many concerns have been raised by the business community. We made amendments when the bill was introduced in an attempt to address these concerns. We heard at committee that a large number of employers were still concerned about references to "facilitating the right to organize" and "improving terms and conditions of employment." As all of you will know, further amendments have been made. Both of these references have been replaced, and business groups have acknowledged that this has had the effect of removing what business considers one of the lightning rods from the purpose clause.

A couple of members have raised the issue of the nurses. I think it's important to make it clear that Bill 40 amendments to subsection 6(4) of the act would extend the right to organize and bargain collectively to professionals who are now excluded from the act, including architects, land surveyors, dentists and lawyers. As with professional engineers, who can already organize under the act, these newly excluded professionals would have a right to a separate bargaining unit unless a majority of them decide to be included in a larger, mixed unit.

Unlike those professionals, nurses of course have had the right to organize and bargain for many years, and have done so effectively. They have sought and have been successful in obtaining separate units for nurses.

I understand that the ONA would like the right to separate units entrenched in the act, and it sees the amendment to subsection 6(4) as the vehicle to accomplish this. As I have stated, the purpose of our amendment is to extend the right to organize to currently disenfranchised groups, not to respond to concerns raised by employees who currently bargain under the act.

While the ONA raised this issue late in the process, we have been considering the ONA's concern and the policy issues it raises. Foremost among the issues we have identified so far is the precedent ONA's proposed amendment would have for other groups of professionals who, like ONA, already organize and bargain successfully under the act, including RNAs, registered medical technologists and physiotherapists.

The PC motion itself illustrates the complicated nature of the issue the ONA raises and the need for further study, which I indicated yesterday that we intend to undertake. The PC motion adds nursing to the list of professions in subsection 6(4). However, the ONA opposes that motion. It seeks addition of the phrase "registered and graduate nurses." They seem to want to exclude RNAs. I ask the PCs, what about the RNAs and what about the long list of other professionals who, like nurses, already are covered by the act? Would they too be added to the list of professions? It's an issue that needs careful study, and we intend to do that.

I think the question raised by the member for York North was, why the bill now? I doubt we'll ever get absolute agreement on this issue. It's our contention, and it's been our contention since the very beginning, that what we're trying to do in the province of Ontario is change the direction we've taken from a confrontational approach to one that's a much more cooperative approach between business and labour.

As I've said many, many times, I get business groups coming to me and saying: "Hey, we want multiskilling. We want more flexibility. We want to be able to deal with some of the more difficult seniority issues." That's a regular question raised with me by much of the business community.

I don't think you're automatically going to resolve those, or take away what amounts to three pretty fundamental issues for workers around the province as well, unless there's a little more comfort and security on their side, in the groups that are now excluded from being able to organize, the larger number of women who are now in the workforce, some of the ethnic communities.

I think all of these issues have to be raised, and we have to decide whether we want to treat the labour group in our society as a very important part and a very valuable one of our assets. I happen to think they are, and I think that's been proved in much of the industrial world.

1610

I know from my own experiences that we have not used the expertise that exists on the shop and office floor anywhere near enough, when tough decisions are being made in this province, that look at the future of a plant, look at whether or not we can increase productivity, look at whether or not they shouldn't have some say in the decisions that are made that affect them when there is an idea of closing down all or part of a plant or moving it. I think we have made a mistake in not inviting and encouraging much more involvement of the workforce in Ontario.

I guess it's a question of whether there is ever a good time to make fundamental changes to basic legislation. I think this is the time that we start changing the atmosphere in Ontario.

Why are the regulation-making powers in Bill 40 being maintained? We continue to await the further report of the Task Force on Agricultural Labour Relations. The task force has asked for an extension of time and we expect to receive its further report soon.

The LRA regulation-making provisions will be dealt with in the bill that will deal with agricultural labour relations. They may be repealed in whole or maintained to a limited extent, depending on the scope of the agricultural bill.

Since we haven't yet decided the recommendations of the task force and haven't yet decided on the form of legislation that will deal with agricultural workers, we won't deal with the repeal of the LRA provisions until those matters have been considered.

I add just a brief comment on that. The Tory member is correct: We have indicated that we were prepared to listen to the concerns they've raised. They raised five or six specific concerns in their report that was issued. I want to tell you that I have no difficulty with any of them but the last one, which was the separate agency. But I have also told the agricultural community that this is not ruled out; we are prepared to look at it as well.

We are seriously looking, as I think the members on the other side know, at the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act and the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act right now and whether there's some way we can combine some of these groups rather than having separate groups. I personally favour an exclusion. In other words, the right to arbitration and not to strike and everything they've requested could very well be in that. It still could be handled under the Labour Relations Act.

Whether or not we are going to be able to reach any agreement on that, I don't know. It may be that we have to go to a separate piece of legislation. I'm hoping we can end up with fewer, not more, pieces of legislation, as long as we can meet the requests they've raised -- and we have no difficulty with the requests the committee has come up with to this point in time.

The First Deputy Chair: Further discussion?

Mrs Witmer: I move that subsections 8(2) and (3) of the act, as set out in section 8 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Representation vote

"(2) The board shall direct that a representation vote be taken if it is satisfied that at least 40 per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit are members of the trade union on the certification application date or have applied to become members on or before that date."

It's obvious that the intent of the amendment we have introduced is to make a representation vote mandatory. This is the first in a series of amendments that are contained within the provisions of Bill 152, currently Bill 76 in Orders and Notices. That was the private member's bill I introduced --

The First Deputy Chair: If I could say something to the honourable member for Waterloo North, we are having a free-wheeling discussion at this point in time, and that's fine. I just want to make sure you understand that we haven't gotten to the point where we are actually moving this particular motion. By all means, if you want to continue with your comments, that's fine, but we haven't gotten to that point at this point.

Mrs Witmer: Yes, and unfortunately we never will get to that point, Mr Speaker. Unless I take advantage of the opportunity right now to represent the views of the people in this province, I will not have another opportunity, because of the manner in which we're discussing this particular issue.

The First Deputy Chair: I just wanted to ensure that the honourable member knew what was happening; that's all.

Mrs Witmer: This amendment is part of the private member's bill which I introduced November 7, 1991, which makes the secret ballot vote mandatory for certification, ratification of a collective agreement and the decision to strike.

Our Premier and this government asked for positive suggestions for labour law reform. Most people who responded to the request for suggestions asked that individual workers be given the right to make informed decisions and be allowed the opportunity for a secret ballot vote. We want to make sure that the individual's right to decide is free of interference or influence from any source, whether it be the employer, the employee or the union organizer. We want to make sure there's a secret ballot vote on whether or not to have union representation or to accept a contract or to go on strike.

We recognize that workers need to have the right to organize, if that is the wish of the majority. However, the process that this government puts in place must ensure that all individuals are fully informed of what is involved in joining a union and the process must ensure that each individual can express his opinion freely without intimidation from any source.

I want to tell you that the current bill is badly flawed in this regard since it does not provide for complete expression of both viewpoints -- labour and management -- or the safeguard of a secret ballot vote on such an important issue as joining a union. This bill must make it mandatory that the union provide all relevant information to the workers concerning its constitution, its dues, the significance of strikes, labour history etc, and management must present its arguments as well. Since the worker must make a crucial decision that will permanently affect his or her relationship with his or her employer, the worker must be well informed and this legislation, Bill 40, totally fails in this regard.

As far as the voting process is concerned, our society has long recognized a secret ballot is the only truly satisfactory way of enabling one to freely express his or her opinion. We know that individuals are subject to coercion on issues such as this and that's why the secret ballot vote is absolutely essential.

Bill 40 restricts the right to oppose unions by taking away an employee's right to revoke a membership card, after the union applied for certification, and petition against the union's application. Believe it or not, under Bill 40 a union could be certified by submitting cards signed by 55% of the employees in the union. However, there is no obligation whatsoever to even inform the other 45% of the individuals about the certification drive. Their freedom of choice, that of the other 45% of the people, has now been totally eliminated by the new proposals in Bill 40.

On an issue such as unionization an employee will have less protection than a consumer dealing with a door-to-door salesman. The consumer at least gets a three-day grace period to change his or her mind. Do you know, it's unbelievable that employees who sign a card will not have the same basic consumer rights that the rest of us take for granted in Ontario.

Given that Bill 40 now seriously infringes on the freedom of choice in joining a union, the certification process must be amended to ensure that it respects the fundamental principles of fairness, freedom of information and protection of privacy. All employees must be provided with complete and balanced information and they must have freedom of choice through a secret ballot process.

Again, I remind the government that in its request for positive suggestions and amendments to Bill 40, I think the most commonly requested change was to give workers an opportunity for a secret ballot vote in order to allow them to make informed decisions. The proposed new certification procedure that Bill 40 introduces is so flawed it appears that the government lacks faith in ascertaining the true wishes and desires of workers.

Again, I remind the government that the reason a secret ballot vote is so important is because certification of a union dramatically changes the workplace. When a union is certified, it is granted exclusive bargaining rights and the individual workers lose any individual right to bargain with their employer. It is a critical choice that workers must make, and it should be made as democratically, as fairly and as honestly as possible. The same argument would apply in the case of ratification and strike votes.

I am surprised that this government has not exhibited faith in the collective judgement of workers. Why is this government so afraid of properly conducted secret ballots after all information has been presented? This bill that enhances trade union power must also take into account the increased potential for abuse, and must be offset by accountability to the individuals it represents.

1620

Therefore, I urge the government again to give serious consideration to this amendment, to support this amendment. This amendment will ensure accountability, and it will make sure that all employees are aware of what it means to join a union.

The law must be changed. It's absolutely essential that a secret ballot be held for certifications and decertifications of unions. In all other modern decision-making situations, whether it's political, investment or consumer, we always rely -- this government tells us that it's extremely important that we have informed citizens who are able to make the right choices for themselves after hearing all sides of the question. As you know, we have political campaigns that try to do that, present all sides. We have advertising promotions. We have independent consumer product evaluations. We have many laws to protect the individual's right of free and informed choice in such situations, and now we need to take that and fully extend those same protections to every individual in the workplace.

The employee must have the chance to focus on the issues and hear the pros and cons of each position before making his or her choice in a secret ballot. We know that a better informed citizen almost always makes a better decision. There will then be no doubt that whatever position is taken is the freely expressed view of the people involved, and it's going to strengthen the credibility of the union that's representing the employees. No business person would then be discouraged about investing in Ontario, because he or she would know that it's a win-win situation, all the information has been put on the table and employees have truly had an opportunity to express their opinions.

You'll tell me, and you have told me, "Well, you know some unions already have votes." Yes, we know that some unions do have secret ballot votes, but it's not required. Surely, now it is time to take a look at what's happening in the rest of the world, where we depend on making sure citizens are well informed before they make a choice. It's time to look past, "We know best; government knows best." We need to make sure that individuals have the right to make their own decisions about their own futures.

The time has come in Ontario for self-determination in the workplace. People working in this province today are informed, and they are able to think for themselves. They are able to understand the consequences of joining or not joining a union, and they need to be given the opportunity to be informed and to have a secret ballot vote.

At this time, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour why he objects. I know I ask this on behalf of thousands and thousands of individuals in this province who have written to me and said, "I would appreciate the opportunity to be well informed before I make any decision and to have a secret ballot vote." Why do you deny people their right and their freedom of choice through the secret ballot process?

The First Deputy Chair: Does the minister want to make a response at this time?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: No, I'll respond after the next speaker.

The First Deputy Chair: After the next speaker. Have you finished with your comments, the member for Waterloo North?

Mrs Witmer: For the time being.

The First Deputy Chair: For the time being. I recognize the honourable member for Chatham-Kent.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I want to focus on the amendment --

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Mr Chair, I rise on a point of privilege: I ask the assistance of the Chair in terms of what I'm about to put before you.

Perhaps before I do it, I should put forward that my understanding of the funding process through unions from checkoff fees to the New Democratic Party is that it is done by union resolution. I understand that to be the case. If I'm correct in that regard, then I submit and ask you to look at the question of whether, under the Legislative Assembly Act -- I will refer you most specifically to section 11. I won't read the entire section. Subsection 11(1) says:

"No person is ineligible as a member of the assembly," and then referring to clause (n), "by reason of being entitled to receive on terms common to all persons similarly entitled and of receiving or agreeing to receive in accordance with such entitlement any service or commodity or any refund, rebate, subsidy, loan or any other such benefit or payment that is authorized under any act."

I refer you to that. I submit that by inference the fact that it says, "No person is ineligible as a member of the assembly" -- if facts those don't exist, the person is in fact ineligible as a member of the assembly.

I refer you as well, Mr Chair --

The First Deputy Chair: I ask the honourable member if he -- so far you have not made a point of privilege, so very quickly summarize what you're --

Mr Callahan: Bear with me. Section 41 of the Legislative Assembly Act says:

"No member of the assembly shall knowingly accept or receive, either directly or indirectly, any fee, compensation or reward for or in respect of the drafting, advising upon, revising, promoting or opposing any bill, resolution, matter or thing submitted or intended to be submitted to the assembly or a committee thereof."

Sections 43 and 44 provide penalties for that and section 46 actually allows the Legislative Assembly and charges the Legislative Assembly with the responsibility of dealing with that matter, Mr Chairman.

The First Deputy Chair: Order. At this point I'd like to say to the honourable member two things: Firstly, in all the things he's said so far, there is not a point of privilege. The second thing is that he's actually running down his own time, so I'm not sure this is to the benefit either of the honourable member or to this House.

Mr Callahan: I'm rising, Mr Chairman, because I'm asking some direction from the Chair of the House. Perhaps, as one of my colleagues indicated, the appropriate way to do this is by reason of notice and put it in writing, which I will be happy to do so that I do not interfere with the members' rights and obligations in this House.

The First Deputy Chair: Every member has that opportunity and I'm sure the Speaker will be glad to look at that.

Mr Callahan: Fine, that's the way I will proceed, Mr Chair.

The First Deputy Chair: Thank you. The honourable member for Chatham-Kent?

Mr Hope: Thank you, Mr Chair. I'd like to speak on the member for Waterloo North's concerns about the expression of a democratic right of individuals, the freedom of choice of individuals and I want to carry it from a different perspective. I want to carry it from the workers' perspective, first of all, because we kind of blend this thing as calling unions that are coming in and unionizing workforces.

One thing I must make very clear. In 13 years involved in the labour movement and understanding the certification process, I think it's very important to understand that when we talk about certification we're talking about the individuals, the employees of that workplace who have been mistreated, or feel they have been mistreated, to ask for representation on a collective process.

When these individuals who are workers in that workplace approach an organization called a union to represent them in a collective manner representing all workers, it is the workers actually in the workplace who are the organizing driving force to inform the members about what's going on. When worker talks to worker, there is a clear understanding of what has been going on in a workplace.

1630

First of all, before you even get to the aspect of certification, the question that has to come up is, why do these employees want a union? Is it because maybe, perhaps, their employer has mistreated them? For heaven's sake, I'm sure they wouldn't want a union if they have a harmonious relationship in that workplace. I'm sure that's not the case. But I'm sure if over 50% of the workforce have been mistreated, whether by the supervisor who is a manager of the company or the company directly, they're upset.

We talk about the democratic rights of individuals. I truly support that. But one of the things that's always forgotten when they talk about the democratic right of the individual who may not want the union is, what about the democratic right of the individual who wants the union? Because when they go and take the challenge of trying to form a union in the workplace, I guarantee that the boss man will not be too happy.

When you're sitting there as a person who's looking for an organization to collectively represent the workers in that workplace -- because they are the driving force. It's the workers who are promoting the union in that workplace; it's not the union coming in and taking over the workplace. So when you ask about the democratic rights, those individuals face a challenge. I've seen this for many years, where workers who are asking for justice in a workplace and have to ask a union for representation are being threatened, not with misinformation but with their paycheques, because a lot of employers don't like unions coming into their workplaces. They think they're bad news, because it's a concept that has been out there.

We talk about more information for the general public, the citizens of Ontario. I would agree with that, but I ask us to look back in our school system -- and I was in the school system not long ago -- and it tells me that we've learned very little about labour history. We've learned very little about how the programs that we have in the country and in the province of Ontario came to existence through the labour movement.

I've heard the members opposite say it's a bad time. It serves me right that in 1934 UAW Local 222 in Oshawa formed a union in the recession. Look at the prosperity that has been created in Oshawa with GM. GM has prospered from that plant, from a trade union that organized in a recession.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): In a depression.

Mr Hope: In a depression. It was probably worse than this case scenario we're in. But one of the things when we talk about is the democratic rights of individuals and holding this automatic certification where we lay both sides of the information out is, if only there was a way to protect those individuals who want the representation right there, if there was a way to protect them. But are you going to be able, through that duration of time, to have somebody who's going to be a bodyguard to that individual, to make sure he's not being coerced about his paycheque, about supporting his family, which he may have to? But you always have to go back to, why was the union being asked to come into this workplace to organize? That has to be the ultimate question, because people just don't do it for the simple fact.

We talk about how the democratic rights are nice. When we talk about how we do it in elections and we do it in other areas, we do it in elections, but you're never threatened with your paycheque during that process. You're never threatened with your paycheque through an election process, but you are on a democratic right to have a membership or have an organization represent you.

I'm surprised they didn't bring up the dollar, because I always find the dollar very familiar. One of the tactics that I thought was by the Tory government and the federal Tories was when they went to the loonie, because it made it very difficult for us to staple the dollar to the card. We used to make sure that we did things very informatively and very organized. We always stapled the dollar on to the card and the individual wrote the serial number down. They'd give him that second option, even taking the time to write the serial number down on the dollar so they knew they were giving the dollar. We made sure they wrote the number of the certification and we used to staple it to the card. But when we went to this loonie, it made it very difficult for us to drive that staple through the loonie to put to the card. I can understand why the minister has removed this dollar being part of it.

Hon Mr Cooke: What about Krazy-Glue?

Mr Hope: We tried Krazy-Glue, but then you've eventually got to take the dollar off, and we wouldn't want to deface the money we have in the province and in the country.

When we talk about the democratic rights of individuals to choose whether to go on strike or whether to vote in favour of a collective agreement, I've never seen a more democratic process than in a trade union. I've had the opportunity of being before angry members who have had the democratic right to choose whether to accept the contract that has been put before them.

Under our constitution we always allow and we firmly believe that the membership has the directive say of what goes on. Negotiators are there representing the best interests of the workers. Most of the time, I'd say nine times out of 10, it's the workers who work in that workplace who are negotiating with the employer. So if you want to talk about democratic rights or making sure that the interests of the workers are being upheld, what better way than having workers who actually work in that workplace negotiating against the company, their employer? All they're doing is allowing a democratic right for this to happen. So when we talk about that process, there could not be a better process in place than allowing those workers to collectively negotiate with their employers.

I've heard the comment made about individuals having the individual right to negotiate with their employer. I've had the opportunity also of representing those workplaces after they've had certification and asked for a union to come in, and I've never seen such a mess; a mess where women who work right beside men are being paid $2 to $3 less, performing the same job right beside one another. And you want to talk about individuals' rights to negotiate wages?

When I sat there and talked to the membership and found out that a woman working right beside a man, doing the same job, putting in the same number of hours, putting out the same production was being paid $3 less, and they want to talk about individual collective rights to negotiate with their employers, that's the problem they get into. How are you supposed to create a harmonious relationship? Can you imagine how that woman who was working beside that individual feels, performing the same job but maybe being paid less because she was being discriminated against because of her sex? Where is the free and collective process, that individual process of negotiating with employers that I hear about from the members?

What there has to be is a collective process. The minister's emphasis on this bill is to make sure that there's a harmonious relationship. What better way of creating a harmonious relationship than to have the cooperation and collective process of negotiating on behalf of all those workers who are becoming part of the bargaining unit?

We also talk about the issue of strike. I heard throughout the five weeks of hearings and in clause-by-clause that it feels like the workers who are negotiating for workers are always strike-happy. I'll be very honest with you; most people live paycheque to paycheque. To lose a week's pay is very hard on the individual. It's not one issue they go out on strike on; they go out on strike on a number of issues because their employer has failed to collectively bargain with them. That's why they choose the strike actions. And not all the time; nine times out of 10, most collective agreements are settled without a disturbance.

When we talk about the democratic right of individuals to collectively vote, that it has to be by secret ballot, whether they want to have a secret ballot vote or not is the democratic choice of those individuals. You'll find that most workplaces always like to have a secret ballot because they never would like to coerce anybody into voting in a way he didn't wish to. We don't represent inside their family lives; we represent their collective bargaining rights. We never want to intrude on the individual's family.

So when I hear the information aspect -- I've been involved in processes where I've sat in the courts for almost a year trying to certify workplaces. If they want to talk about democratic rights for individuals, then why are we going through all this hassle?

I think it's very important to understand the emphasis that is being put out there. In Chatham, Ontario, Union Gas was just sold. The unionized workplace was bought by a BC corporation. They weren't afraid; they thought it was a positive step. We had Navistar, in Chatham, hire an additional 200 employees and put in a new production line. If you want to talk about a union that has a history, that one has a strong history of representing its workers. It has less than a 40-hour workweek for its membership. Navistar took the initiative to put money in that plant and hire more employees. They knew that the union was a strong union and a union they could depend on to produce quality products and get them out the door. That's why they went that route.

When I hear the issues about the negativity, I ask the members opposite to be involved in a union certification drive. Listen to the individuals who are being intimidated with their paycheque. Talk to the single-parent mom who is out there and who works in a sweatshop talking about a decent wage so that she doesn't have to depend on social assistance, and the employer can afford it. You want to talk to those individuals and find out how they feel.

1640

Those individuals are workers; it's not the union. They asked the union to represent their best interests like we're supposed to do here, where we're representing the interests of the people in Ontario. They do the same thing with the trade union.

The First Deputy Chair: I thank the honourable member. Would the honourable minister like to reply?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Just briefly, first off, the presentation made by the member for Chatham-Kent is one that's based on some background in and knowledge of the trade union movement. It certainly rings true with some of the things I have gone through in my own background.

I want to deal with the Tory critic's comments. I want to point out that a vote is required where there is less than 55% support. The card system is widely used across Canada and is the most effective way of testing employee support. The only provinces that have the automatic vote, as far as I am aware, are British Columbia and New Brunswick. The others don't. Mandatory votes in the United States have led to long and difficult litigation and intimidation during organizing campaigns. The government is following the lead of previous governments in maintaining an automatic certification process.

I would point out -- I don't know whether the member's aware of it or not -- that it was her government that put this in place 30 or 40 years ago and never changed it in all the time it was in power. Although we are maintaining the support level for automatic certification at 55%, we are maintaining the automatic support level at 55% in response to one of the business concerns.

Having said that in terms of a specific answer on the voting, let me just make a couple of comments. My background did include a lot of time with the trade union movement and it also included time as an organizer. If there was ever an issue that was driven home to me where the instructions I got were specific, it was: "Because it's difficult to get a certification in Ontario, don't get yourself caught out of hand in any misinformation or tactics that are going to give you problems."

I want to tell you that I organized a number of plants and I'm quite proud of it. I want to tell you also that it was one of the early experiences I had that drove it home to me. It was just outside the city of Windsor, in a plant where we were asked by a delegation of workers to go in and organize. Like many of the plants, the reason for it, the strongest drive for it, is something we haven't totally settled to this day: the health and safety issue.

We had in that particular plant three employees, three young women who had totally lost a hand or part of a hand as a result of improper guards on the machines in that plant. There was a level of fear in that plant. It was a marginal plant trying to get by, and the people who were paying the price were the workers in that plant.

We went to the board when we got a majority in that plant, and we ended up with a petition, as I did in a majority of the cases I took before the Ontario Labour Relations Board. In every case in which I was involved in an organizing drive where we had a petition, we had it thrown out. It's much more difficult today to get thrown out and one of the reasons we want to do away with this certification time period.

But we had it thrown out. Why? There was not a case at that time -- and it's much harder today. The litigation in the United States is an example of it; much longer cases of litigation. They have found ways to dispute or fight this particular issue, but we had every one thrown out in the plants that I organized, because we were able to prove before the labour relations board that a company foreman or the company lawyer or somebody else had initiated the petition we ended up with. We never had one where there was a charge against the union organizer or the union in cases like that.

I think it's important to realize that in terms of the health and safety issues, in terms of the concern and fear of workers that you get, that's still there in many cases. In some cases it has improved in Ontario. But your government decided this was an avenue it wanted to take. We think it's one to continue, and I'm wondering, if it's such a terrible move we're making, as you suggest in your comments, why nothing was done in some 42 years of Tory rule in Ontario.

I think the proposal we have and the elimination of the petitions does not eliminate the right of workers. If a worker truly believes he or she has been pressured or intimidated, he or she can still go, even after the date, before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

This is better legislation and stronger legislation than we've ever had before, and it's the first legislation that gives some real protection to workers, who decide themselves that they want a union, not because a union comes in and says, "You've got to be organized," but because, whether it's health and safety issues or what have you, they want to be organized.

Mr Stockwell: The minister of unemployment turning the tables.

The First Deputy Chair: Order.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think it's a good piece of legislation and that's why we reject the suggestion you're making.

The First Deputy Chair: I'd ask the honourable members --

Interjections.

The First Deputy Chair: Order, please. First of all, I'd like to ask the honourable members to please keep order. Secondly, the honourable member for Etobicoke West, if you're going to interject, which you're not supposed to do to begin with, please take your seat.

Further discussion?

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I would like to comment. Once again I have an opportunity to stand and comment on this legislation that is once again before us and has gone through committee and is in committee of the whole House.

I want to start off by saying, as I thought about this bill, that if if I honestly believed this government's intentions were to improve the climate of labour relations in this province, I would stand up today and say I'm all for this. But you can believe this, my friends: This will not do that in the very least. This will drive a continual wedge between management and labour.

We see the results of it. We don't even have this bill in place yet and, as I see in my notes before me, we've had almost 1,100 groups and individuals who asked to be heard before the committee. And what was this? Only 250 witnesses, or less than 25%, were allowed to appear before the committee. That's unbelievable. There's no doubt that anyone who wanted to be heard on this, something as fundamental as this legislation, which alters the relations between management and labour in this province, in this jurisdiction, for a long time to come -- and let there be no mistake about this, that this legislation will not be undone so easily, never mind what my friends in the third party are saying.

Once this regime is in place and working, several years down the road when this administration will be toppled, we hope on this side, it'll be very difficult to undo the damage that this legislation will have done. That's why we stand steadfast in our position, very resolute -- that's a good word to use against what we are seeing being done to Ontario today by this administration and this party. We are adamantly opposed to this legislation because of what it proposes to do to the climate of labour relations, because of the damage it will do to the economy, because we know the bill will have entirely the opposite effect of what was intended.

I would really like to stand up and commend the minister, if he's truly sincere about having a better climate of labour relations in this province, and welcome that initiative, because in the 21st century that's exactly what we're going to need. We're going to need cooperation. We need that in the 1990s, we need that in the next century. We need cooperation between labour and management. We see examples of that already taking place in the workplace. We see examples of it, and the minister knows full well that is occurring.

1650

Mr Stockwell: Where?

Mr Cordiano: Right in this very jurisdiction, under the legislation which we have in place today, prior to any changes being made by Bill 40.

There is cooperation, Minister. There is cooperation, shining examples of what can be accomplished without the kinds of proposals that are being advanced here being in place.

But the thing that concerns us most, and it sincerely concerns us, is that what you're planning to do here will not benefit anyone in the long run.

Mr Stockwell: Oh, no. The union executives.

Mr Cordiano: Well, yes, I'm sorry. My friend says "union executives." There's no doubt that unions will be allowed to organize more freely, will be allowed to increase their numbers, will be allowed to do that in an open way.

Perhaps even that wouldn't be so bad if the changes you've proposed in this legislation would not give the preponderance of power and clout on the union side with respect to issues around certification, with respect to issues around replacement workers, the concerns we've pointed out repeatedly, which I think are genuine, legitimate concerns of people who are operating the plants, factories and businesses, and entrepreneurs out there who are looking to invest their money in this jurisdiction. But we know that's going to have an adverse effect on the climate for investment. We know it's going to have an adverse effect on the very labour relations you are trying to enhance.

It creates a wedge. There's no getting around that. It will seriously create a wedge. It's done so already. It's poisoned the climate for relations between labour and management at the very time when we need greater cooperation. We've been talking about greater cooperation for the last number of years. I understand your intention here to improve labour relations, and if that's what you honestly wanted to do, I would support you in that effort, even though this bill is seriously flawed. But I don't believe your intention here, and that's why we stand here very concerned about the effects of this.

Mr Stockwell: What do you think they're trying to do?

Mr Cordiano: They're seriously going to continue to put people out of work by these changes. Yes, it does have that impact, regardless of whether you'd like to admit it or not. There are very serious implications. People who are reasonable, looking at these proposals, who sit from a distance, who look at investing money around the world, have commented on this repeatedly. There's no doubt that that's the net effect of this.

I know our critic will be making further submissions when the debate resumes. Unfortunately, he is not here with us today because of a family matter that arose. But I say to the minister, would it not have been possible to allow him the opportunity today to speak in his place? I don't think that was asking for too much and it would have been a nice courtesy to extend to our critic.

Mr Stockwell: Is he a union executive?

Mr Cordiano: Certainly not, but I think it would have been at least a gesture of goodwill, which is exactly what we're trying to foster in this province, and work with him to provide him that opportunity for him to be in the Legislature today to comment.

Unfortunately, as I said, he's not with us today and I have come to the end of my time, but I say to the minister, think hard on the proposals our very thoughtful critic has made, because some of these proposals and amendments which he has put forward are quite reasonable and would allow you to move in the direction you want to move in without continuing to foment the kind of alienation you are causing with respect to the private sector. You are definitely causing a wedge. I think the amendments we have proposed are quite reasonable. You should look at them very seriously without dismissing them on a whim.

The First Deputy Chair: Any response from the minister?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Not at this point in time.

The First Deputy Chair: Further discussion?

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I've sat through these hearings --

Interjections.

Mr Turnbull: I hear the hyenas beginning to yowl from the other side of the floor. I've sat through these hearings in the committee, and the minister has been noticeably absent.

The First Deputy Chair: Order, please. I'd just like to say to the honourable member that "hyenas" is not a parliamentary term, and I don't think we need to use that kind of language in the House.

Mr Turnbull: There's nothing unparliamentary about that.

The First Deputy Chair: In my opinion, there is, and I'd ask the honourable member not to use that kind of language.

Mr Turnbull: I think your opinion is flawed.

The First Deputy Chair: That may well be but I would ask the honourable member not to use language like that.

Mr Turnbull: Keep these people quiet, then.

The minister has been absent from hearings in this House. You may shake your head, but the fact is that we're talking about the most important debate we've had of legislation that this government has brought forward, legislation that, it has been proven, will lose for this province 295,000 jobs. The government hasn't been able to produce one shred of evidence to counter that. We believe that secretly it has had an impact study done which confirmed those numbers and it has refused to bring it forward.

We have a freedom of information request to get it, and if we ever find after this process that indeed it has been confirmed, we're going to shove it down your throat, Minister. Have no doubt about that. You have not been in the committee listening to the legitimate concerns of business, the people who provide the jobs in this province.

We know, from the study by Ernst and Young, that this is going to cost this province $8.5 billion in investment, and where have you been? You've been hiding in your ministry.

The other day when I said in this House that it was inappropriate, in a question, that we should have clause-by-clause consideration of this bill at the time of the national debate on the referendum, the minister gave us some bafflegab. Instead of addressing the issue, that is, that the national debate is focusing people on the referendum and not on this --

Interjection.

Mr Turnbull: The people are interested in this and yet the papers are not reporting it at the moment. You are trying to sneak through this legislation because you are so gutless that --

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): We got the press in our back pocket; that's it. It's a conspiracy.

Mr Turnbull: Yes. Yes, indeed. We'll see how much in your back pocket they are in the next election. You are going to be driven from power, and let me assure you, we are going to tear up this legislation.

It's amazing that I had a senior representative of the Boilermakers union visit my office a few weeks ago to say they they don't like this legislation and don't like Bill 80. It said the best labour legislation that ever existed in North America was brought in by the Tories, not by the NDP or any other socialist party known by any other name.

You had promised us amendments which would allow for management from other locations to be brought in, and you brought in amendments which did not address this.

You had issued a press release. It was wrong, and another word for "wrong" is a word that we cannot use in this chamber about a person.

Mr Stockwell: Bob Rae used it.

Mr Turnbull: Yes, Bob Rae used that about the past Premier. Bob Rae said that the past Premier was a liar. Do you remember that? Now, I wonder what words they would use to describe your administration, Bob Rae, and you, Mr Mackenzie. Yes, indeed. Here is the headline: "'Premier has lied to the people,' Rae charges."

The First Deputy Chair: Order, please. I'd ask the honourable member to please be seated for a moment.

The honourable member at this point is, first of all, not addressing through the Chair. Second of all, he is provocative and also talking with the member's own name, which is not acceptable. You're supposed to talk through the Chair and refer to people according to their titles. I'd ask the honourable member to address the Chair, to maintain his comments and to attempt to keep his inflammatory discussion down to some reasonable discourse.

1700

Mr Turnbull: I would suggest that "inflammatory" would be a rather minor term for what the business community feels about this bill. It's very hard to have any respect for ministers who are completely disregarding the economic health of this country and this province, because indeed we are the economic engine of the country.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): We've already lost 200,000 jobs.

Mr Turnbull: Yes, 295,000 jobs seems to be something the minister can snigger and laugh about. I can tell you, the people who are losing their jobs aren't sniggering and laughing about it.

We have indeed heard from Heenan Blaikie, one of the major law firms that study labour law, that the replacement by management from other locations, the amendment you've brought in, absolutely does not address that issue. Yet you have brought forward all of these press clippings. You've had press conferences to suggest that you've been listening to the business community. Absolute phooey. You have not, because you have brought something that has no relationship to what you told the people in the press conference. In the next election you will see the judgement passed on you that is being passed in the streets today as people say, "How can we get rid of these clowns?"

This piece of legislation has not had any proper scrutiny by the people who should have been party to it.

Interjections.

Mr Turnbull: Why don't you sit down?

The First Deputy Chair: Order.

Mr Turnbull: We do an awful lot better than you guys.

The fundamental questions I'm asking the minister are: Why are you ducking out from any media attention? Why do you refuse to put forward these clause-by-clause considerations until after the referendum? Why didn't you attend any of the hearings we had? You looked in and had about a five-minute speech. Hadn't they woken you up that day and briefed you well enough? It's true: This minister is a minister who is incapable of running anything. You couldn't look after the toilets in this building.

We have concerns by school boards. The school boards are saying that if you have a strike, you will not be --

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): A point of order, Mr Speaker.

The First Deputy Chair: I'd ask the honourable member to please be seated.

Mr Farnan: I sat as the Chair of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly yesterday, and I heard a Conservative member of this House make a plea for decent behaviour in this chamber. This member is a disgrace to the entire assembly and to every member elected in Ontario.

Interjections.

The First Deputy Chair: Order. The honourable member for York Mills has the floor.

Mr Farnan: This is the bottom of the barrel.

Mr Stockwell: You don't remember your days in opposition, do you? What a short memory.

Mr Turnbull: My colleague the member for Etobicoke West reminds the members across the street that they don't remember their days in opposition and all of their tactics. This is a party that is governing us now with total ineptitude, and people are constantly contacting our offices and saying, "How can we get rid of them?" Unfortunately for the electorate, we have to wait until the next election.

It's very interesting that Gerald Caplan, your own spokesman, is talking to Conservatives privately and saying, "We know that we are a one-term government, so we're going to ram down the throats of the electorate everything we want." That is the reality; that's what Gerald Caplan is saying behind the scenes. He has admitted you're a one-term government.

Please have enough sense to realize that it's going to be such a mess after this government. We should not have to mop up all of the dirt that you're leaving behind. Why can't you attend hearings and listen to what people have to say?

If this is inflammatory, it's because I'm so disgusted with a system that allows the minister to completely leave the process of committee of such important legislation to everybody else and not listen. Maybe he was having his afternoon nap, as maybe he should be having, but if he wants to have that he should resign and let the seat be vacant and let us see who wins the seat and then let's see. In fact, this government should resign over this legislation.

This province is doing worse than any other province in Canada in terms of job losses. Why is that happening? It's because of the inhospitable climate that this government has created.

The minister seems to think it's very funny that we're losing so many jobs. I don't.

The First Deputy Chair: Does the honourable minister wish to respond?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: In the best old Baptist tradition of my father, I understand the member can be a little excitable and I think it's not worth responding to.

The First Deputy Chair: Further discussion?

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I'm going to respond a little bit to what the member for York Mills had to say and to some other members. I did hear some of the comments from across there.

Mr Turnbull: Respond to 295,000 job losses.

Mr Hayes: Let's just talk about those job losses. When we talk about democracy and the workers having the right to vote and to have the secret ballot vote, did those same people have a right to vote on the GST? Did they have the right to vote on free trade? Did they have the right to vote on the inflated dollar? Did they have the right to vote on the interest rates? Those are the reasons that the jobs are lost in this province and in this country. Those are the real reasons. If any jobs are lost in this province that they're saying relate to Bill 40 --

Mr Turnbull: The C.D. Howe Institute says you're wrong.

The First Deputy Chair: I call the honourable member for York Mills to order.

Mr Hayes: More jobs may be lost because of the scare tactics that that party over there is putting out --

Mr Stockwell: To order over that?

The First Deputy Chair: Order. That's right. And the honourable member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Hayes: I've heard some comments, little remarks, about the minister here about when he was organizing and how it was 25 years ago that some of these happened. I can inform the members here today that some of the things about people being intimidated or being fired or losing their pay and things of that nature because they mentioned that they would like to join a union, this is happening today and it happened 25 years ago and longer than that. That's why the workers in this province are saying today that we have been waiting way too long, because the things that had been happening 25 or 30 years ago are still happening today in the workplaces and those threats are still there.

I'm going to give some other members some time to speak here. I'd just like to say that my own son David is a part-time worker. I called home today and he said to my wife that Gary, his friend, and him are saying, "Let's get on with this type of legislation because we do need that protection."

Mr Phillips: Get out and create some jobs.

1710

Mr Hayes: Yes, we want to create some jobs. So I would suggest to the members to really accept what has happened and what has caused the jobs to be lost in this province. If they're really concerned about jobs, they should be promoting this province and not going out and telling the public how terrible it is.

I'm sorry that the members on the other side cannot accept the fact that they have an NDP government. It's sour grapes to them and they just can't stand it. You can't stand it.

What this bill is really about is giving people basic rights for decent living.

We talk about free trade, but they don't want to admit it, because both of those parties supported it. Mr David Peterson was going to come back and take that Conservative federal government to court. When Hunt-Wesson, a processor in my riding, closed shortly after the election, I called up the president of the corporation to see what we could do to keep it there, and he quoted what I quoted: The GST, the inflated dollar, high interest rates and free trade were the reasons they were moving their plants back to the States, and of course because of some of the legislation that they like over there. But these corporations love it when they can leave this country and ship goods back in here tariff-free and duty-free. They love that.

I will leave some time for some other members to speak on this. This legislation to give workers decent wages and decent benefits is well overdue. Your types of policies are the ones that scared the jobs away prior to this government ever being elected in 1990.

The First Deputy Chair: Further discussion?

Mr Callahan: The hallmark of this legislation was that it was going to remove violence from the picket lines. When I watch what's going on in here, I wonder whether we should have a bill removing violence from the House.

I'm going to speak very briefly on this. There will be a few points I want to touch on and I have very limited time to do it. I want to say first of all that the difficulty I think has arisen here with this legislation is perhaps the climate in which it was born. There's no question in the mind of any member of this House who is honest with himself or herself, or the members of the public who are watching, that the rules of the House were changed specifically in order to allow this bill to be put through with the least amount of public hearings and the least amount of debate. I think any member who stood up and said that was not the case would be misleading the House. That atmosphere didn't help things; it soured the whole process.

The second thing is that there has not been an impact study done. I find that passing strange, because we're in an economy where every day we hear of plant closures, we hear of jobs being lost. If there's one thing this House should be united in, it's in trying to create an atmosphere in which jobs will be generated and will be available and acceptable. We're not doing that. At least on this side of the House we're saying: "Do an impact study. If you show by the impact study that this bill and all the provisions will in fact increase jobs and enhance jobs for people in Ontario, then we will take another look at it."

But unfortunately, as I say, the atmosphere under which this bill was born was the rule changes, which were draconian, and the fact that there was no impact study done despite requests from the people on this side to have an impact study done.

Mr Mahoney: The Tories supported the rule changes.

Mr Callahan: That's right. My colleague reminds me that the Conservatives supported the rule changes, so of course they've helped the NDP get us into this conundrum.

But to return to the matter, when you start off by poisoning the atmosphere to that extent, you can't expect that the legislation is going to be received with open arms. Minister, for some reason you're rushing with undue haste to bring into legislation a bill that could have significant impact on this province. You're bringing it in at a time when we can ill afford to lose any more jobs. You're bringing it in at a time when the interest rates are going up and down like seesaws. You're bringing it into an atmosphere where we have some uncertainty in terms of what's happening in the country.

Minister, if the purpose of bringing this in is to help workers, then I suggest that you may very well be putting at risk the very people whom you say you wish to help. Their very jobs may be on the line because of this. If that is the case, if in fact these jobs are being put in jeopardy -- and I certainly hope I'm wrong. I certainly hope that the effect of this legislation when it's passed -- and it will be passed because, there's no question that the NDP government has the numbers to pass it and it will be law, it will be in existence -- will perhaps prove to be beneficial. I don't know.

Certainly, looking at some of the sections of the act, I can't for the life of me understand why the nurses could not have been given the amendment they asked for. It's a simple matter. It would have been an olive branch to the nursing profession. Yet I'm told, and on fairly reliable information, that the OFL was opposed to it.

If that's true, Minister, then you've poisoned the atmosphere again. It means that the union bosses, not the union rank and file but the union bosses, are calling the shot over there. We've got Bob White who meets regularly with the Premier. We've got a couple of the other honchos in the union executive who meet with him.

What you've done is told the nurses of this province specifically: "It doesn't matter what you want. If the union's not in favour of it, if the OFL executive is not in favour of it, you don't get it." I suggest to you that this was a mistake. You could have extended an olive branch to the nurses of this province and you would have at least one group of people who would be on your side.

The second thing I would like to address is the question of the farming community. Minister, you know very well that there were discussions. There was a group that went around and discussed the issue of the farmers being bound by this act. We know, and the farmers understand, that you are going to look at that and perhaps look into the question of the farming community having its own act. If that's the case -- or is this just another George Bush, "Read my lips: No more taxes," and then do it to them -- why would you leave a section in the bill that does two things, and two things that are very sneaky? I'm sorry to have to say that, but they are sneaky.

You tell the farmers: "Don't worry about it. Trust me. We're just leaving the section in the act, and as soon as we've got your act in place that section will be removed." The thing you didn't tell the farmers -- and I don't think most people out there understand how it operates in this place -- is that you've left it to be done by regulation, which means that the cabinet can go down to the back hall on the second floor right now, or as soon as this bill is passed, and can pass a regulation. That's what it's called. A regulation is passed by the cabinet. It has no magic, it sounds great, but it really is a regulation passed by cabinet.

You've told the farmers: "Don't worry about it. We'll fix it afterwards." You have left it in there by way of regulation, which means it will never come to the floor of this Legislature, so the farmers are getting their last kick at the cat by our speaking out and urging you to at least consider striking that part of the bill.

I ask you two things. I would ask you for more, but I know you're committed to what you want to do and you've got the numbers to pass it, so what's the point of trying to get you to change your views on the others? But I would ask you, Minister, before this bill is passed, that you deal with the nursing issue, that you give them their own category. Nothing will be lost through that. Bob White and others are not going to be upset if you do that. Maybe the OFL executive will be, but so what? You're the minister. They have no right to tell you, a freely and duly elected member of the Legislature, what you can do.

The second thing I would ask you to do is to remove the section dealing with the farming community.

1720

If you do those two things, perhaps my standing up here and speaking will have had at least some benefit for those people whom you will make happy by doing that. That's really what it's all about: You want to make them happy. You don't want your members from rural communities to be affected by the factor that you're not listening to the farming community. You don't want them to be affected by the good nurses who tend all of us, tend to our needs when we're ill. Do you want to anger them? What's the point?

Finally, in order to allow some time for my other colleagues, I would like ask you, as you've had no impact study, if this legislation after it's passed -- and I'm asking the minister this; I'm asking him to give an undertaking in the House. If it turns out, Minister, that you're wrong and that we're right, because you've not done an impact study, that in fact this legislation does prove over the next little while to be a formula for disaster in terms of keeping plants open, keeping industry here, attracting investment and creating jobs, I'm asking for your undertaking that at that time you will come before the House and you will acknowledge that the bill has not been the success you thought it would be and you will make appropriate amendments, that it will not have to leave the bill in place in terms of its present situation. I'm asking for that undertaking, Minister, and I'm asking you that as a question.

The minister is smiling because he thinks that's naïve and facetious, but Minister, I think that is totally responsible. You are a minister of the crown. Your responsibility requires that you pass legislation that is good for the citizens of the entire province of Ontario. If it turns out, because you've had no impact study done, that in fact the legislation does all the things that we believe will happen --

Hon Mr Cooke: You're going to come and tell us it's okay?

Mr Callahan: Sure, believe me. The honourable House leader says if it works and if you're wrong, you're going to come and say that the legislation was good. You better believe we will.

The picture the House leader and the New Democratic Party have tried to paint throughout this entire scenario is the factor that they're the saviours of the worker, that they're the only people who care about the workers and that we over here in the official opposition are anti-union, anti-worker. That's the furthest thing from the truth. I suggest that the interests of everyone in this House as elected members of the Legislature should be to ensure that legislation is the best it can be, and if it turns out afterwards that you've made a mistake, have the good grace and the courage to stand up and say you're sorry.

I must say that I'm offended, on a collateral issue, that the Premier of this province and the Solicitor General of this province haven't got enough humility to stand up and say, "I made a mistake," to the police of this province, "in terms of the way we're treating you and my door is open," instead of saying the words quoted in the paper today, "It certainly won't be me calling the meeting." That to me is arrogance of the highest order. I hope that you will appreciate that and that you'll deal with it in that fashion and admit it if you've made a mistake.

I want that undertaking, Minister. If you don't give it to the people of Ontario, I assume you're just thumbing your nose at them.

The First Deputy Chair: Does the honourable minister wish to reply at this time?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I have no response.

Mrs Witmer: I'd like to continue speaking to some of the amendments the PC party has proposed. As I mentioned before, we have 94 amendments and we have tried to incorporate as much as possible the views of the over 600 groups and individuals who made representation to the committee this summer during five weeks of hearings.

I'd just like to preface the remarks to the next section, section 12, and again state that we're very concerned about Bill 40. I think many of the speakers this afternoon have indicated the concern, the concern being that there has been a lack of consultation on this particular issue. There has never been any study done to determine the economic impact, and unfortunately other studies indicate that we're going to lose jobs, about 300,000 jobs, that we're going to lose investment, about $8 billion, and that Bill 40, unfortunately, after it's passed next week or the week thereafter, is going to have a very negative impact on the economy.

I'm very concerned about the very high youth unemployment rate that we have in this province at this time. It is 20% higher than anywhere else in Canada. Certainly, that is a very pessimistic sign for our young people. This bill is going to do absolutely nothing to promote job creation or encourage investment, and I am concerned.

However, I'd like to go back to section 12. As I said before, we want to make sure that we incorporate the viewpoints of the people who addressed the committee this past summer.

In section 12, the government here is allowing organizing and picketing on third-party property. We would like to introduce an amendment which would strike out section 12 and maintain the existing Trespass to Property Act protection. We are tremendously concerned about the impact of section 12, which would allow organizing and picketing on third-party property, and this concern was echoed this summer by the More Jobs Coalition, the Retail Council of Canada, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Ontario Mining Association, the Ontario Restaurant Association and Tourism Ontario. The concern is widespread.

The Trespass to Property Act makes it an offence for a person not acting under a right or authority conferred by law to come on private property without the owner's permission or to fail to leave the property when directed to do so by the owner or his agent.

The problem with Bill 40 is that it totally overrides, and it is unbelievable that it does so, the Trespass to Property Act. The right of access to third-party property in the bill is totally going to override the Trespass to Property Act. For the first time in any jurisdiction in Canada, the rights of third-party owners will be subject to the union's right to organize and picket. Such a revolutionary departure from the present state of the law is an unjustified intrusion on what has been considered a fundamental right.

Bill 40 is going to violate not only the rights of property owners but also the rights of innocent consumers. Businesses that share retail space but are not party in any way to the labour dispute are going to have their businesses negatively affected. We know people do not want to shop in a mall where there is picketing. They will simply take their business elsewhere.

In the event that a third party is disrupted by organizing or picketing, relief can be obtained from the board, but only in the event of "undue disruption." In other words, disruption is acceptable as long as it is not "undue disruption." What is "undue disruption"?

This bill fails to provide that the right of access be restricted. I'll give you some examples where now we could have organizing and picketing on third-party property that would impact on innocent people and businesses that share retail space.

You could now have it occurring in the halls or the corridors outside a cafeteria located in a hospital where the cafeteria workers are not employed by the hospital -- unbelievable. You could have organizing and picketing where an independent boutique is located within a larger department store, for example, one of the cosmetic counters at a store like Eaton's or Simpsons or the Bay. You could have organizing and picketing within the foyer of a public building, such as a city hall.

I'm also very concerned that there is no definition within Bill 40 of permissible picketing behaviour. It was interesting, because the cabinet submission, the discussion paper and the fact sheet all indicate that the amendment was intended to give employees who were striking the right to "peacefully" picket. Why has the word "peacefully" been omitted from the text of the bill? It is a very, very, significant departure. Why was it not maintained?

The cabinet submission also stated that access to third-party property would be granted, and I quote, "at such time that the premises or property is accessible or open to the public."

1730

I want to tell you that there is no such limitation on hours within Bill 40. If you grant employees and trade union representatives and individuals 24-hour access to third-party property, it is unreasonable and it is inappropriate. I can tell you that third-party property owners will be forced to incur additional costs in the area of maintenance and security. I would strongly recommend that the government adopt our amendment to remove section 12 totally from the act.

I'd like to speak next to the other section, subsection 19(1) of the bill, subsections 41(1) to (1.3) of the act. What we really would like to do here, although it was ruled out of order, is delete section 19 from the bill. We are very concerned about section 19 in regard to first-contract arbitration. I'm going to speak to our original amendment, section 19, which was originally ruled out of order, and as a result we've introduced another subsection which we hope will be considered.

I'm going to go back to the whole of section 19, first-contract arbitration, for my discussion. I can tell you that employers in this province continue to hold the view that the first-agreement arbitration provision currently found in subsection 41(1) of the act has not been proven inadequate.

Under Bill 40, arbitration will no longer be reserved for exceptional cases where bad faith or unreasonable intransigence has resulted in a failure of the bargaining process. Arbitration is now going to be available in every contract dispute once the necessary 30 days have passed. This amendment is intended, as is the entire bill, to facilitate union organization, because this does allow unions to promise employees that they will not have to go on strike to reach a first contract, and that is a radical change from what is presently found.

What is going to happen? How does this facilitate unionization? If you have a very weak and vulnerable union -- and there are those within the province -- that union can simply wait 30 days and then have the dispute arbitrated. Unfortunately, this is going to remove the obligation from labour and management to resolve difficult negotiating issues, and it's going to turn the responsibility over to a third party. That is what concerns so many people.

You tell us that this bill is intended to improve cooperation and harmony between the employer and the employee. What you're doing here in first-contract arbitration by going to arbitration after 30 days is removing the obligation from the two sides to come together to resolve their differences. It's not going to help the cooperation, it's not going to help the harmony, and furthermore, the union no longer will have to prove that the employer is unjustifiably intransigent.

Arbitrated first contract is going to become the norm in this province. This proposal is going to have the effect of preventing management from taking a firm but very fair stance on issues. Again, it helps to destroy the delicate balance that was in the bill originally.

While maintaining a threshold for first-contract arbitration is necessary to encourage serious bargaining, I can tell you that the elimination is going to be detrimental to the collective bargaining process and, unfortunately, it's going to work directly against the goal of greater labour-management cooperation.

We have to remember that the first collective agreement sets the framework for all future collective bargaining. Once arbitration is instituted, the employer will have no say in terms of the first collective agreement. It's frightening to consider that terms may even be decided, and will be, without any regard to the real costs to an employer's business.

We in the Ontario caucus believe that the best agreement is one that parties freely agree to, both employees and employer. Legislation must promote the free collective bargaining of an agreement rather than promoting artificial agreements that are imposed by third parties. That, unfortunately, is exactly what this section is intended to do. It's going to remove the opportunity for the two sides to come together and reach consensus on issues.

The First Deputy Chair: Does the honourable minister wish to respond?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I'd like to respond to some of the points that have been raised by the member for Waterloo North. The argument that we have not done the consulting is one that has been raised time and time again in this House, and I think I can say to the member that I don't know an issue or a bill, certainly in the years I've been in the House, that we've had more consultation on.

Following the release of the detailed discussion paper on Bill 40 in November 1991, I personally was on the tour of the province. I know the member sat in at some of the sessions and we've heard from more than 330 groups across the province of Ontario. We've had a constant and solid consultation process with the umbrella groups within the ministry as well, three times around with all of the umbrella groups in the Labour ministry. That was followed by the province-wide committee hearings in August of this year, in which another some 250 presentations were made.

We not only listened, we made changes, and some of them are major. We have some comments and thanks on record from a number of individuals and firms for these changes. We changed the purpose clause, dropped the proposal to give supervisors bargaining rights and a proposal to provide for automatic certification with majority support. Also gone are proposals to provide access to employee lists for organizing and to employers' property. There has been plenty of consultation, discussion and debate. It's about time we approved the bill and gave it a chance to see what we think it will do in this province of Ontario.

I would once again remind you that you can continue quoting the 295,000 jobs, or I think you used the figure of 300,000, and $8-billion investment, but I suggest that you go back to the survey itself that was done and read the caution put in by the surveyors themselves, and when you're taking a look at those kinds of figures realize that it came from some 330 business leaders alone, and was not a professional survey. It was really an attempt to decide what the business community thought, and they themselves, in the survey that was done, put the caution there that this could very well be influenced by the desire of the respondents to influence the legislation that was going through. I don't know anybody who gives it credit as a real, legitimate survey.

In terms of the PC motion to section 12 of the bill, access to third-party property, this motion would strike out the provisions of Bill 40 providing limited access to third-party property for the purposes of organizing and picketing. The government's intention in Bill 40 is to make the act more responsive to the changing workplace and changing workforce, and in particular to women and minorities in the retail and service sectors, many of whom do work part-time for low wages and are among the groups the evidence has shown find it hardest to organize in the province of Ontario.

Right now, the Trespass to Property Act bars unions from organizing or picketing on premises to which the public has access for a variety of other reasons. This provision would take organizing and picketing off the street and away from the front entrances of shopping malls and closer to the employer's actual premise. In response to concerns raised by employers, access is restricted to the exits and entrances of employers' property, and there will be a fast access to the board, one of the things we've done for relief if there are disruptions.

1740

The government has also announced that the Ministry of the Attorney General will conduct a study of the law and conduct of picketing. These are the reasons why we don't support the PC motion.

I should also point out that it has become fairly obvious, in the change in our society, that the shopping malls are the new public thoroughfares in many of our towns and cities. Without some access there, it's going to be very difficult for people who desire to organize.

In a confrontational dispute over a first contract, I think the existing scheme is not easy to access, and litigation is long -- that's the history the ministry has on record -- and costly. It can take several months to obtain approval from the OLRB. In one case, 613 days elapsed between the application and the board decision. Anybody who knows anything about an organizing drive will realize that 613 days -- and there's not a heck of a lot of protection or ability to guarantee the kind of organization the employees may have wanted.

A 30-day waiting period is substantial and will require the parties to take bargaining seriously. Most people don't want an automatic settlement. They want to be able to negotiate. We have to have access to that negotiation, and I think that's part of the intent.

These are just some answers to some of the questions you've raised and why we will not be supporting some of the amendments you have raised with us.

Mrs Witmer: I would like to respond to the minister. I think your response has once again highlighted the intent of Bill 40. I agree there's a need for change. However, it becomes very obvious that Bill 40 is intended to facilitate unionization at a time when jobs are being lost. Although you talk about the need for organizing and picketing on third-party property, it reinforces the fact that the intent is to organize the retail, service and financial sectors, sectors that have not been organized before. I feel very uncomfortable that there isn't really any concern in here for individuals and their rights and freedoms. The entire package is a scheme to facilitate unionization and to make sure that whatever happens, there are sections in here that facilitate, and make sure that does occur.

The First Deputy Chair: Does the minister wish to respond?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Very briefly, because I don't particularly want to get into a dialogue at this stage of the debate.

There's no automatic organization. The organization is only there, I would remind the member, if the workers decide they want it, and they still have to go through the process. Surely, in a democratic society, she's not saying that right shouldn't be there and equally accessible to all workers who may decide they do want this right.

Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): It's a pleasure to participate in the debate at this time. I'm going to try to answer some basic questions that I'm sure the people of Ontario may have about Bill 40 and the clauses contained in that bill.

One question that has been touched on today -- indeed has been touched on since Bill 40 was first discussed -- is the reason why. I think there's consensus in this room and throughout Ontario that one of the reasons is that the workplace and workforce have changed drastically since the mid-1970s, and the act itself, the Ontario Labour Relations Act, has not kept pace with that change.

When I look at my own community of Brantford, as early as the mid-1980s we were dominated by a blue-collar manufacturing base in primarily two companies, Massey-Ferguson and White Farm. Both those companies are gone, gone in the mid-1980s during the supposedly boom times we experienced in our country. The service sector has grown by leaps and bounds to replace those jobs, but unfortunately, the jobs in the service sector are not as well paying, typically, as they were in the blue-collar base. The fact is, the workplace and workforce has changed. More women than ever are in the workforce.

I won't touch on picket line violence and how I believe Bill 40 will reduce that, because my good friend George Mammoliti is going to entertain that view if he has time and I can get through my points here.

People say we haven't consulted. Let me tell you, my friends, since the Burkett committee first released its report, I can't think of any other bill that has received as much consultation, as much discussion or as much attention in the history of this Legislature. Even Bill 162, introduced by the previous government, which was very controversial by its very nature, I don't believe had as much consultation as this did.

In the spring, we released a discussion paper on the issue of updating the labour act. Over 300 groups and organizations, business, labour and individuals, had an opportunity to give presentations to the minister and to the capable parliamentary assistant, Sharon Murdock. Bill 40 was drafted from those discussions and consultations. In the summer, in August, the standing committee on resources development travelled throughout the province, and another 240 groups, individuals, business and labour, had an opportunity to give presentations. So there has been consultation, my friends.

Critics of the bill say we haven't made changes. In the original Burkett commission and in a discussion paper, there was a suggestion that supervisors should be allowed to organize, that there should be access to company property for union organizers and that there should be access to employee lists. The purpose clause was worded in such a way, and the critics of Bill 40 said, "We want those out" or "We want them modified," and we listened. Supervisors are exempt from organizing. There's no access to company property for union organizers. You can't get employee lists. The purpose clause has been modified.

Let me talk briefly about investment. In my community of Brantford, we've had our tough times. I mentioned the Masseys and Whites and the decimation that occurred in our economy, but we've also lost other plants: Maple Leaf; Protein Foods; Koehring Waterous, our oldest industry; American Healthcare; Chicago Rawhide. All of those plants weren't closed because of Bill 40; they were closed because of bankruptcy, because of corporate rationalization or primarily because of free trade.

We've had investment in Brantford: Gates Canada, $4 million in April and an additional $8 million coming very soon; BASF, a German company, $6 million; Western Foundry, which I just helped to open up on Saturday, 90 jobs created.

I don't pretend that this investment is the result of Bill 40 either. I think it's because of our workforce, our infrastructure, our education, our quality of life and our dollar. All those intangible items go into investment decisions.

Labour law reform is simply one piece of the economic puzzle that we're trying to put together to meet the challenges we're facing in the 1990s. With the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, the infrastructure, the education reform we're undertaking, Jobs Ontario and the Ontario investment initiatives we're undertaking, I think we're well on our way to meeting the economic challenges we're facing in this province now and well into the future, into the 21st century.

The First Deputy Chair: Does the honourable minister wish to reply?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I appreciate the remarks we had from the member. No reply at this time.

The First Deputy Chair: Further discussion?

Mr Callahan: When last I spoke, I asked for the undertaking of the minister that if the legislation proved to be either bad or disastrous in terms of job loss and investment lost, he would revisit the bill and change it if necessary or withdraw it. The minister has not given us that undertaking, so I'm going to move to another aspect.

1750

The bill itself has a clause that reads as follows:

"2.1 The following are the purposes of this act:

"1. To ensure that workers can freely exercise the right to organize by protecting the right of employees to choose, join and be represented by a trade union of their choice and to participate in the lawful activities of the trade union."

That's an admirable purpose clause, Minister, and I trust that your government, in enacting that, honestly believes that's what you want to do. Having said that, it seems to me that it flies in the face of logic, in light of that purpose clause, that you would require part-time and full-time employees to be potentially in the same bargaining unit, and that you would allow that to happen by a 50% vote of the body itself.

I put to you this scenario, and perhaps your colleagues who were on the committee didn't relate this to you: For argument's sake, let's say that 50% of the full-time workers vote in favour of this, for want of a better word, shotgun wedding, and in fact the part-time workers are denied their rights to have a separate union and could in essence wind up in the same bargaining unit. If that bargaining unit went out on strike, it would mean that these part-time workers would be dragged out in the same strike in a bargaining unit which they didn't wish to be part of.

I suggest to you, Mr Minister, that it doesn't take a rocket scientist -- I can assure you I'm not a rocket scientist, and all of you over there are nodding in agreement. Mr Minister, how can you square that -- and I'm going to ask you to speak to this -- to the purpose of the bill, that's your bill, which says:

"The following are the purposes of this act:

"1. To ensure that workers can freely exercise the right to organize by protecting the right of employees to choose, join and be represented by a trade union of their choice and to participate in the lawful activities of the trade union"?

Clearly, as I say, anybody watching this who just tuned in right now would have no difficulty in following that the purpose clause flies right in the face of the endeavour by this bill to force together part-time and full-time workers. I suggest to you that there was an amendment put forward by the Liberal official opposition that would have solved that problem and would have allowed your purpose clause, as imperfect as it is, to have some logical sense. Basically, that was that the percentage would have to be weighed out of both sides -- out of the part-time and the full-time -- in order to give them an opportunity to truly have their rights protected, as the clause says, to join and be represented by the trade union of their choice.

Minister, I suggest you look at that, unless you have an answer as to why that purpose clause is in fact being bent or destroyed by the very provision dealing with part-time and full-time workers.

I suggest to you as well, Minister, that many of the people out there in my riding who I hope vote for me, and I think they do, are rank-and-file members of the union. I think it's absolutely tragic that you are attempting to sell this bill to them on the basis that it's going to be good for them. It's going to be good for one thing and one thing only, and it's something I've learned since I've been here since 1985: When you people were in opposition every bill had this sort of hook to it. The hook was, "Let's increase the opportunity for unionization so that the leaders of the unions and the NDP, which benefits from the checkoff of these union members, will have more money to run our campaigns."

I will be presenting to this House, as I indicated, a motion later in writing -- I didn't want to take up the time of the House -- questioning whether or not your action in presenting a bill of this type and the resulting increase in the coffers of the New Democratic Party is not in breach of the Legislative Assembly Act, in that you people are espousing and putting forward a bill that will assist your party in terms of financing it.

You can say to me: "Well, checkoff moneys are given by unions to the NDP by resolution. That resolution can always be changed." I defy you to tell me that there isn't at least one union in this province that in fact does not have a resolution on the books, and has not had it there for a significant period time, that requires the checkoff money to be delivered to the New Democratic Party. If I'm correct then, I suggest to you that you are in breach of the Legislative Assembly Act, because you are speaking on the bill that is going to increase the coffers of the New Democratic Party and prepare its war chest for an election.

If any party in this House, the Liberals or the Conservatives, attempted to put through a bill that was going to increase and aid them in financing their election campaigns, you can be sure that this would be in breach of the Legislative Assembly Act. You, as members, have directly or indirectly benefited or will benefit from the results of this legislation, so I simply tell you that I intend to put that motion forward. It will be up to the Chair, I suppose, to decide whether or not that's a valid motion at the time I put it forward.

There is certainly a question through the minds of the rank and file, many of whom don't wish to have the checkoff. In fact, I understand there may be a very large withdrawal of a particular union from the provision of checkoff. They don't want to have their money specifically directed to your party. They want to have the freedom of opportunity to be able to use their money in support of whatever party they consider is espousing their cause.

I can suggest to you that the workers of this province have been and will continue to be supported by the Liberal Party -- they have always been supported by the Liberal Party -- and you people are not the be-all and end-all of the working people in this province.

I suggest, Mr Minister, I'd like you to answer that question for me about the issue of the difference between your purpose clause and the section dealing with the part-time and full-time workers.

The First Deputy Chair: I thank the honourable member. Does the minister wish to reply?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Very briefly. I debated whether or not I intended to, because you get a question that you think might be a legitimate question. Then you get the shotgun wedding and other charges and you wonder whether there's any reason to respond at all to the member.

But let me tell you, the member seems to assume there's no community of interest. I can tell him right now that part-timers don't have the right to organize. The board separates them from the full-timers and it's a disincentive in the unit. They don't have the strength, and I think that's one of the reasons why I should also point out to him that there's not another province that doesn't allow them to be grouped into the same unit, nor the federal government. We're the only province in the country that doesn't give them that right.

The First Deputy Chair: Further discussion?

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Very quickly, I wanted to talk a little bit about an area in the bill that I'm very glad to address. Replacement workers have always been an issue with workers. More specifically, violence on picket lines is something that I always had a concern about. I spoke about this in second reading and I want to talk briefly about this right now. I don't think there's a member from the Liberal Party or from the Conservative Party who has actually visited a particular family who has gone through that ordeal.

Mr Stockwell: Oh, stop it.

Mr Mammoliti: The member for Etobicoke West tells me to stop it. I'm not going to stop it. That man there has never visited a home during a strike. That man there has never visited a home with children in it who are suffering because the father or the mother is stuck on a picket line because of replacement workers.

They haven't. That stone of a man, the member for York Mills, has not done that. If they were to visit a family that is suffering on a picket line for two, three, four months, sometimes two and three years, they wouldn't be speaking like this. They would not be this cold. They are cold people, stone, and they're very hard to break.

But people can read them. They can read this man today with this speech, this so-called stone speech that he made today. This doesn't only pertain to them. It pertains to the Liberals as well, because I don't think any of them have visited families who have suffered through the ordeal of picket line, because of replacement workers, having to fight to put food on the table.

I am really disgusted with some of the attitudes over there, and I can't understand why, for the life of me, they would not agree with this bill.

The First Deputy Chair: Would the minister like to respond with the last few seconds remaining?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think what we're hearing were comments from the heart and I appreciate them.

The First Deputy Chair: I recognize the honourable member for Downsview. There are 23 seconds.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I thought we were going to have 40 seconds or so, so not to take any wind out of my sails, I'll save some of my time for when we continue the debate tomorrow. I thank you for recognizing me and I turn it over to the House leader so he can announce the business for next week.

Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Chair, I move that the committee rise and report.

The First Deputy Chair: Mr Cooke has moved that the committee rise and report.

1800

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): The committee of the whole House begs to report progress and asks leave for it to sit again. Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Hon Mr Cooke: I would like to request unanimous consent to move to routine motions, one to deal with the fact that the House won't be sitting on Monday and one to allow some private members' bills to be dealt with next week. Both have been agreed to by the opposition House leaders.

The Acting Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House? It's agreed.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTING

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): I move that when the House adjourns today, it stands adjourned until 1:30 pm on Tuesday, October 27, 1992.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Does the motion carry? Carried.

CONSIDERATION OF BILLS

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): I move that standing order 87 respecting notice of committee hearings be suspended for the consideration of Bills Pr44, Pr59, Pr62, Pr67 and Pr52 by the standing committee on regulations and private bills on Wednesday, October 28, 1992.

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

Now I'd ask the honourable House leader to make the business statement.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): Pursuant to standing order 53, I'd like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week.

On Tuesday, October 27, we will consider an opposition motion standing in the name of Mr Elston.

On Wednesday, October 28, we will continue with committee of the whole House consideration of Bill 40, the Ontario Labour Relations Act amendments.

On the morning of Thursday, October 29, during private members' public business, we'll deal with ballot item 27 standing in the name of Mr Harnick and ballot item 28 standing in the name of Mr Johnson, and in the afternoon of October 29 we will consider a motion for interim supply.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Pursuant to standing order 34, the question that this House do now adjourn is deemed to have been made.

The member for York Mills has given notice of dissatisfaction with the answer to the question given today by the honourable Minister of Labour. The member has up to five minutes to debate the matter and the minister has five minutes to reply.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Yesterday I pointed out to the Minister of Labour in question period that in four days' time, the country is facing a referendum on probably the most important issue to face our nation since Confederation.

At this time of national decision-making, it would be appropriate that we, at the very least, consider only less significant bills when the public's attention is focused on the referendum --

Interjection: And the Premier's not here.

Mr Turnbull: And the Premier's not here -- rather than our having a situation where the most significant bill the government has pushed through during its term is being rammed through the House at this time.

You know very well, Minister, that the public attention is diverted to the Constitution. It's also diverted, frankly, to the Blue Jays. You're putting through this legislation when the public attention is turned away and the media are not spending any press space on what is going on in this House.

I would suggest that this is fundamentally undermining the process that your Premier said at the swearing-in ceremony he was committed to, open government. This is not open government.

You know, Minister, from the number of presentations that have been made on Bill 40 that it is considered to have the potential for costing 295,000 jobs, by the estimate of Ernst and Young, and another group has suggested it could cost as many as half a million jobs. You may say that's not true, but you haven't produced one shred of evidence to suggest that it's wrong.

The point I am making is that considering the significance of this legislation -- significance to you, the side that is proposing it, and significance to the other, the opposition parties which are opposing it -- it is inappropriate that you are not giving the proper airing to the media and to the public of this legislation. I suggest that is not fair. It is not fair to the electorate. This is a sneaky way of doing business; it's a sneaky way of government. I would have expected more of this government, but slowly I am beginning to realize I shouldn't expect anything of your government, other than sneaky, dirty tactics. You're destroying the economy.

As I said earlier today, Gerry Caplan is privately speaking to people outside and saying he knows you've accepted you're a one-term government, and you're trying to push through this horrible legislation. That may be the case, you may argue with it, but at least you should have the intellectual honesty to be able to allow proper scrutiny of this bill, and what you're doing today is not allowing this.

Will you not at least ask the government House leader to stop the whole consideration of this bill until all the dust has settled, whichever way it goes, on the Constitution?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): Very briefly, when the member got excited about this yesterday, it was on the basis that we were trying to sneak the legislation through. I said to him then and I say to him now, in the 18 years I've had the privilege to sit in this House, I don't know of another piece of legislation that has not had more publicity, more consultation, more meetings with groups and more discussion in a committee than this particular legislation. The suggestion that somehow or other Bill 40 is being sneaked through in Ontario is just a goofy suggestion.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): There being no further matter to debate, I deem the motion to adjourn to be carried. This House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock on Tuesday, October 27.

The House adjourned at 1808.