role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

July 7, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ACCESS TO CHILDREN IN CUSTODY

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): The Attorney General will know that I have shared with him stories of a number of people from my riding who, despite being granted visitation rights by the courts, are still unable to access their children: people like George Lloyd who, despite having been accorded access rights, has not seen his daughter in five years.

The Attorney General has not taken a stand on the question of access for non-custodial parents. What he has done is set up some pilot projects which will allow the parents to visit their children in supervised facilities. These centres do absolutely nothing for the parents who do not know where their children are.

The simple fact is that the court orders for access are rarely, if ever, enforced. The Attorney General knows that when he came into office, Bill 124,

An Act to amend the Children's Law Reform Act, had only to be proclaimed. It was passed by the Legislature and it would have meant greater access for parents like Mr George Lloyd and others.

It appears that the Attorney General does not care about assisting parents in accessing their children. When will he take some action to recognize parents' rights by addressing this injustice?

HIGHWAY WIDENING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Once again I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Transportation the critical situation that continues to exist on Highway 6 between Owen Sound and Guelph in my riding of Wellington.

As the minister is aware, this stretch of highway is heavily travelled, especially in the summer months when much of the cottage-bound traffic passes through. Highway 6 is also the main corridor to Highway 401 for most of Wellington county, so there is a high volume of commercial trucks utilizing the highway.

There is an urgent need for passing lanes on this

section of Highway 6. This issue is an important one for my constituents, so important that it was the first issue which I raised in the House after my election. I made a statement on November 26, 1990, to emphasize to the minister the important safety considerations attached to the need for passing lanes on this particular

section of Highway 6.

The construction of passing lanes would also encourage economic growth in our area, since all manufacturers which have expressed an interest in locating in Wellington county are particularly concerned about efficiently moving their products to the marketplace.

As a result of my request for action on Highway 6, the former minister wrote to me in January 1991 to advise me that the passing lanes for Highway 6 would be included in the ministry's five-year construction program. This is not satisfactory to me or my constituents.

Safety and economic factors warrant immediate construction of passing lanes on this

section of Highway 6 to help alleviate the traffic congestion and facilitate more efficient movement of vehicles. I urge the minister to announce a definite date for such construction as soon as possible.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise today to inform my fellow elected representatives of a very special coalition of citizens groups, the Ontario Toxic Waste Research Coalition. The coalition is made up of seven separate groups: the Niagara North Federation of Agriculture, the Niagara Peninsula Fruit and Vegetable Growers, the Concerned Citizens, the Niagara Residents for Safe Toxic Waste Disposal, Citizens for Modern Waste Management, Preservation of Agricultural Lands Society and the Elcho Study Group.

These groups banded together as a coalition in January 1986 in order to collectively oppose a proposal by the Ontario Waste Management Corp to build a giant toxic waste facility in the township of West Lincoln, in my riding. In total, the coalition represents over 3,200 citizens in Ontario. Its mandate is simple: to stop the OWMC proposal. It believes that the technology being proposed is out of date and that such a facility should not be built anywhere in Ontario.

The coalition is a full participant in the ongoing environmental assessment hearing that is looking at the OWMC proposal and it represents the interests of the citizens without any political bias.

The coalition is a fine example of the general public banding together to fight for what is right. The member groups and the people who belong to them should be proud of the valuable contribution they are making to help improve our environment and to help ensure that Ontario does not make a mistake by allowing an outdated facility to be built.

COURT STAFFING

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Mr Speaker, my statement today is directed to the offices of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General.

This is a government that tries to build its reputation on consultation, but it's just not happening. Last Friday the Kenora courthouse was without two judges. Both Judge Little and Judge Frazer refused to sit, the reason being a lack of security at the courthouse. Additional holding cells were added to the courthouse but they do not have direct access to the courtroom. As a result, prisoners must be escorted back and forth between the courtroom and the holding cells. Of course this requires additional staff.

These security problems and the need for the additional staff were never discussed with the local police commission, which as you would know is responsible for the staffing of the courthouse. Nor has the government provided further financing to the municipality to deal with the added security risk brought about by the new facility.

Kenora councillor Chuck Tyrrell, vice-chairman of the police services board and chairman of the town of Kenora finance committee, said the board knew about the cell changes but was never consulted; therefore no staffing increases were budgeted. The board recently voted to hold staffing to its present level at the courthouse.

This issue was brought to the attention of the offices of both the Solicitor General and the Attorney General last May. To date the commission has not received a response from either ministry.

NORTH YORK BOARD OF HEALTH

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): On November 28, 1991, I brought to the attention of this House the funding inequities faced by the North York board of health. You will recall that health units outside Metropolitan Toronto receive a provincial grant for 75% of their budgets. The North York board of health currently receives a provincial grant for only 40% of its budget. The province has yet to act upon this inequity.

Today I would like to bring forth another funding problem faced by the North York board of health. The board is faced with a financial crisis. To meet this crisis, the North York health department has already reduced its budget by nearly $1 million through staff reductions and cuts to its immunization, AIDS awareness and family planning programs.

Mr Speaker, 20 North York schools are without an assigned public health nurse. Furthermore, assessments of children's immunization records, which is required under the mandatory program of vaccination for preventable diseases, will be restricted to 70% of the required total unless the board receives additional funding.

The provincial government has continued to spend at almost 5% the rate of inflation while it has asked organizations such as the North York board of health to limit their spending to a 1% increase. Certainly, demands such as these demonstrate this government's double standard.

ONTARIO HYDRO RATES

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Proposed hydro rate increases may severely impact the Niagara Falls economy. My constituent Michael Saxton, who is an hourly paid labourer at Norton Co and who has just purchased his first home, wrote to me:

"Since electricity is such a large part of our production costs, we work on off-shifts and weekends, when the rates are lower. Further increases in rates will only result in higher production costs, thus hurting our ability to compete. If we can't compete, we will close."

Yes, I know Ontario Hydro is helping industry to be efficient; yes, off-peak power rates are helpful; yes, Ontario Hydro has frozen executive salaries; yes, power supply is reliable; and yes, I know this major rate increase is a result of ill-conceived, inefficient and reprehensible decisions by Tory and Liberal governments which led to outrageous cost overruns at Darlington.

All true, and yet this government faces the reality of today. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary and creative measures. Rate increases need to be examined now in the interest of jobs. I will do whatever I can to facilitate communication and cooperation between workers, industry, government and Hydro.

I thank the Minister of Energy and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology for meeting with us over the past two months. Other governments would not act. If any government can make Ontario Hydro more efficient and responsive, it is this government.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I rise today to share with the House a letter I received from Vazken Terzian, director-administrator of Servocraft Ltd, which is located in the riding of Oriole.

Mr Terzian asks me to "do everything in your power to get the NDP/union leadership to realize the harm they are doing to the construction industry through labour relations legislation." He says the NDP labour legislation is already having a negative effect on the construction industry. He goes on to say: "In May there were 79,000 unemployed construction workers with 25,000 in Metro Toronto alone. The Laughren budget chopped $112 million in capital," and further the NDP rent legislation is costing more construction jobs.

Mr Terzian states that people in the construction industry understand the political pressure placed on the NDP caucus to bring in changes to the Labour Relations Act that are favourable to organized labour, but they don't understand why the NDP leaders have failed to see that the construction industry is already severely depressed and their proposed legislation will add to the ranks of unemployed construction workers and deepen the despair of their families.

Mr Terzian's letter is just one more example of thousands of concerned Ontarians. He wishes to "avoid any further devastation and unemployment," and I would like to quote him when he says, "Anyone voting for this legislation is no friend of the workers in construction" in Ontario.

MEDICAL LABORATORIES

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My caucus colleagues and I are extremely concerned with the Minister of Health's treatment of private laboratories. The supplementary budget paper on health care resources indicated that the program review for laboratory services will focus on the promotion of public hospital and public health labs.

We find it inconceivable that these decisions have been made without any consultation with private laboratories and that this NDP administration has rejected offers of assistance in cutting costs from the association representing private medical laboratories. All indications are that the Minister of Health has predetermined the outcome of this review.

I fail to understand how the minister can expect service providers to believe in consultation and partnership when such glaring biases are evident. Sunnybrook Medical Centre's management information system has demonstrated that it is far more expensive for hospitals to do the tests rather than the commercial sector. This has been demonstrated in a number of tests, including complete blood count, fibrinogen, electrolytes, urea, urinalysis and differential.

The question looms, why is this NDP administration willing to promote a more expensive service provider instead of a less costly service provider where the quality of service is the same? I encourage the Minister of Health to take a close look at the Sunnybrook findings before proceeding against the private laboratory sector.

PAULINE JEWETT

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding figure in Canadian public life, Pauline Jewett. As members know, Ms Jewett passed away last Sunday after a three-year battle with cancer.

Pauline Jewett was a leading feminist, academic and politician. In many areas of her life she was a groundbreaker. In politics she was a role model for women who were interested, as she was, in participating in making public policy but who found many barriers to such participation. As an academic she was also a pioneer. In 1960 she was the only woman among the five faculty members in the political science department; the other faculty members recommended her to head the department. In 1974 she was made president of Simon Fraser University, the first woman to hold such a position in Canada.

In recognition of her outstanding contribution to our public life, Pauline Jewett was one of 22 distinguished Canadians who were named to the Privy Council of Canada on July 1 of this year.

She started her political life with the Liberal Party, running for the first time in 1962. With other female politicians of the time, she was a curiosity. When she approached Lester Pearson in 1965 about a cabinet appointment, she was told, apparently without a shred of irony, "I already have one woman in cabinet." In keeping with her earlier political sentiments, Pauline ran in 1972 as a New Democrat and from then on was a role model for other females in our party. She was a well-respected, well-loved member of the federal caucus and acted as a mentor to numerous up-and-coming politicians. This is only one part of her legacy.

For all of those men and women, especially women, to whom she was a role model, I say Pauline Jewett will be deeply and sadly missed.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

GUELPH CIVIC CULTURAL CENTRE

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): It is my pleasure to rise in the House today to announce that the Ministry of Culture and Communications will play a key role in the development of a dynamic new cultural centre in Guelph, Ontario.

Using an allocation to the ministry under the Jobs Ontario Capital fund, we will provide $2 million over the next three years towards the construction of the Guelph Civic Cultural Centre. The project will create 200 jobs.

The fund is part of this government's Jobs Ontario initiative, which was announced in our April budget, to help renew the economy. Under the capital fund, the Ontario government will spend $2.3 billion on creating jobs over the next five years. The city of Guelph, local businesses and the federal government are also making substantial contributions to the centre.

The centre will provide vital facilities for performing arts organizations and for community groups. It will complement the Guelph Spring Festival, already one of Canada's most outstanding classical music events. It will attract new tourists and new businesses to Guelph and, in doing so, help revitalize the downtown core, and it will create new jobs in the community.

We wish to salute the people of Guelph, and in particular the Citizens' Committee for the Guelph Centre for the Performing Arts, for building the partnerships needed to get this project under way. We are delighted that the government of Ontario has helped the people of Guelph invest in their own community and in the province of Ontario.

Despite these tough times, this government is committed to renewing our economy through job creation and through investment in Ontario's culture. We understand the importance of a thriving arts sector to the social and economic wellbeing of the province. Today we are able to show that commitment through this $2-million grant.

This is wonderful news for Guelph, for the cultural sector and for all Ontarians.

RESPONSES

GUELPH CIVIC CULTURAL CENTRE

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'd like to respond to the statement in two areas.

One is in the general area where the minister makes the comment, "Despite these tough times, this government is committed to renewing our economy through job creation and through investment in Ontario's culture." I've said several times, when this government announced this Jobs Ontario strategy, that it's time to come clean with the people of Ontario.

The minister should have acknowledged that on page 86 of the budget, the Ministry of Culture and Communications capital budget, the money for these job creation programs, last year was $31 million. This year it's $15 million, cut in half. We're not saying spend more money. We're saying come clean with the people of Ontario. Stop saying one thing and doing another thing.

Again, I've said to the Treasurer on this capital area -- he talks about job creation and the budget -- that the facts of the matter are that there is less money in this year's budget on capital programs than there was in last year's budget. Don't try to fool the construction workers of this province by announcing that you are increasing spending. That is simply not the case. When this government came into power there were 343,000 people working in construction in Ontario. At the end of May there were 249,000. Virtually a third of them are now unemployed.

Furthermore, in terms of this Jobs Ontario strategy, as I said last week and I'll say it again, the only new job that's being created with this is by recruiting a new advertising agency. When we're in tough economic times, why is the Treasurer allowing the government to go out and recruit a brand-new advertising agency to announce spending less money than you were spending last year? It is a fraud.

I saw in the Globe and Mail last week:

"The government of Ontario is seeking a full-service advertising agency to provide creative service for the public information activities associated with its Jobs Ontario economic initiatives. To handle this assignment, companies must demonstrate they have the personnel, technical and administrative resources in place to provide highly innovative and creative services to support this initiative."

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): What would you do?

Mr Phillips: I'll tell you what we would do. The Treasurer asked what would we do. We would go ahead and spend the capital money you have allocated, but we would not be doing a public relations exercise wasting the taxpayers' money. Every day we see one minister come in here and announce a capital program, wasting taxpayers' money. Get on and create the jobs, spend the money that's in the budget, but don't try to say something that isn't true.

You are trying to leave the impression with the constructions workers of this province that you're spending more money. The Minister of Culture and Communications cut literally half the money out of the capital budget and then dribbles back this sort of money and leaves the impression that this is a job creation program. We say to the government come clean with the people. Don't try to present something that is simply not the case. I hope the members of the caucus who aren't in cabinet will start demanding that of the cabinet ministers, that we not try to mislead the people of the province.

On the specific announcement, because I was talking generally about the jobs programs and raising the concerns we have, I hope -- and the minister has made this announcement today -- that this agency, this organization has some assurance from the minister that the operating funds necessary to keep this program going will be available. The worst thing you could do, Minister, is to provide the capital funds, raise expectations and then find that the operating funds are not there to operate this program. That is the worst thing you could do.

I hope that there's been a thorough study with the important local group and that it is assured the government will provide the necessary operating funds. If that's not the case, I hope the minister has some serious discussions with them so that they understand exactly what financial commitments the government's prepared to make.

The Art Gallery of Ontario, as we all know, closed its doors, I guess merely a week ago, shutting off one of the best tourist attractions in this province because it didn't have the operating funds. I hope that in this announcement the minister has looked at the operating funds and that we aren't going to put this community group into the same jackpot that AGO has now found itself in.

Finally, I appreciate that the minister has said there is full support in the Guelph community for this program. I certainly hope that's the case. I understand there are at least some organizations there that want some more assurance on the program and I hope those assurances are forthcoming.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm pleased to respond on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party to the announcement by the Minister of Culture and Communications this afternoon that there's going to be $2 million in funding towards the Guelph Civic Cultural Centre, creating about 200 jobs, as the minister has indicated. But this announcement has to be looked at beyond just looking at it in isolation, as the minister has indicated.

Yes, perhaps jobs will be created in the short term, but we must recognize that construction jobs that are created by government spending are inherently short-term jobs; they're not long-term jobs. The government is responding in this way of course because its anti-business rhetoric, its anti-business policies have destroyed job creation in the private sector in this province and it's forced to respond with taxpayer-generated jobs that are again short-term.

I think if you also look at this announcement and other announcements the people of Guelph and Wellington county would have been looking for today, they would have liked also to have seen an announcement on the hospital funding and assurance that the ground is going to be broken this summer with respect to the development of the new hospital. I think that's an important issue as well to the people of Guelph.

I know, representing the riding adjacent to the city of Guelph and all around it, the outstanding importance of the Guelph Spring Festival and many of the other cultural attractions the city of Guelph has, so this announcement is obviously concurrent with what they have to offer there, but we also have to look at the broader perspective across the province.

We look to the Art Gallery of Ontario, as has already been mentioned, and the $2.6-million cut in funding to AGO, which has necessitated its closure this month until January 1993. Of course the Art Gallery of Ontario plays a very important role in community outreach and making programs available across the province, exhibition events and that sort of thing, to allow community galleries around the province to have new exhibitions in a timely way. We know if that gallery is closed, art galleries across the province, such as this civic cultural centre, will have a great deal of difficulty in bringing forward new exhibitions in ways that would attract people, so that is also a concern.

I don't want to take the full time with respect to my response to this announcement, but I must say that this appears to be another cynical attempt by the government to demonstrate that it is creating jobs when in fact we have seen thousands and thousands of jobs in Ontario that have taken flight and entrepreneurs who have fled this province because of the policies of this government. In the context of that climate today, we find this announcement is not good news and is most disappointing.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LANDFILL SITES

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Mr Speaker, given the size of the demonstration outside our doors today, you will not be surprised, sir, that I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. I tell the minister that she is very quickly gaining the reputation of being the most stubborn, the most arbitrary and the most inaccessible minister in the province's socialist labour government.

Her Bill 143, which makes her the czarina of all garbage in the greater Toronto area, which gives her the exclusive authority to tell the people of the greater Toronto area where Metropolitan Toronto's garbage is going to be dumped, has started the kind of political and citizen reaction we have rarely seen in this province.

I want to ask the minister, what is it going to take to get her to change her mind? Is it going to take another demonstration of 1,000 people on the lawns of Queen's Park? Is it going to take even more citizens' groups meeting by the thousands right throughout York region and the greater Toronto area? The editorialists not only in local papers but in regional papers and in papers all over the province have said that her policies in Bill 143 are wrong. The environmentalists say that she is wrong. No jurisdiction in the world is approaching the garbage problem in the way in which she has approached it.

I simply want to put it to the minister: What is it going to take to get you to change your mind, to withdraw Bill 143 and start us down a path which will really solve the problems we have in the disposition of garbage in the greater Toronto area? What is going to take?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): I regret the presumption in the member's question that large rallies of people -- and I know that people rally and that people feel very strongly about this issue -- are the way to change public policy.

I would remind the member that Bill 143 was introduced into this House, was debated in this House and was the subject of hearings before a committee across the province. When he says it was not supported by environmentalists, I'd ask him to go back and check the record on that debate, because that legislation which puts in place the mechanism to do serious waste reduction, reuse and recycling within the greater Toronto area, as well as spelling out how to find landfills, is very progressive legislation and is widely supported by people all across this province.

Mr Sorbara: I reiterate my point about stubbornness. There is no question about the 3Rs; that is not the subject of this issue and this debate. The subject is Ruth Grier's determination, made privately and without consultation, to make York region the site and the only site for dumping garbage from Metropolitan Toronto, and she knows that full well.

If she will not repeal the bill, I simply say to the minister that there is an opportunity within Bill 143 to solve this problem. Bill 143 does not prohibit the Interim Waste Authority from considering other sites elsewhere in the province, and it does not prohibit the IWA from looking at other solutions and other technologies. What this province needs is one word from Ruth Grier, the Minister of the Environment. She holds the key: One word from her, and the IWA will have the authority to pursue other sites and other technologies and really get at a solution.

Will the minister simply utter that word and allow the Interim Waste Authority to look at a variety of solutions instead of picking on one region which is one neighbour of Metropolitan Toronto as the site to dump 40 million tonnes of garbage in the backyard of Metropolitan Toronto? That won't work. We need one word from you and we can start to solve this problem.

Hon Mrs Grier: In the first question, the member accused me of making a decision arbitrarily and behind closed doors. In the second question, he's asking me and attributing to me the power to arbitrarily and with one word change a piece of legislation. I can't do that, even if I felt it was in the best interests of the environment to do so.

Mr Sorbara: It's ironic that the minister has not even read her own piece of legislation. Look at the legislation, and you will see no prohibition. The legislation states clearly that the Interim Waste Authority is not required to look at other sites or other technologies, but the legislation clearly permits that and it's only a policy statement from the Minister of the Environment that is prohibiting that.

She makes light of this problem and says it is a crisis created by the previous government. I submit to you, Mr Speaker, that the only crisis we have on our hands is the policy that the Minister of the Environment is following. She says there is going to be a full environmental assessment once the one York region site is identified.

I want to ask the minister whether she still believes in a fair hearing process and what she plans to do once that hearing is completed and the citizens of this province win the hearing and the site is rejected by the board that is going to hear the application. What is the minister going to do under those circumstances, or has she already put the fix in to make sure that the board rules in her favour and against the people of York region?

Hon Mrs Grier: I'm glad the member acknowledges that the final decision will be made by an independent, objective board, the Environmental Assessment Board. Far be it for me today to prejudge what their decision will be.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): My question is to the Minister of the Environment as well. Minister, over the course of the last number of weeks, all of us in York region have been attending a variety of public meetings. We've had the second demonstration now. At demonstrations, people arrive with their hats, with their placards, seeking some way to get the attention of the government, to say, "We don't want you to use this particular approach."

The question that arises at every meeting, the question that arose at the demonstration today, Minister, is why: Why have you arbitrarily decided that the region of York shall take all the garbage from Metropolitan Toronto? What people in York region want to know, very simply, is why.

Hon Mrs Grier : I think I've answered this question innumerable times, but I know it is one that concerns the people in York. The fact is not that they don't know my answer but that they don't like my answer, but let me try the answer again.

The answer is that waste management in this province has traditionally been the responsibility of municipalities. Municipalities seek solutions within their boundaries or make an agreement with an adjacent municipality, as have many and as do most, to resolve waste management issues together.

In 1983, Metro and York arrived at an agreement that a landfill site would be established in York to look after Metro's and York's waste. That site was filled to capacity much sooner than anybody had anticipated because there was no emphasis on waste reduction, reuse and recycling. What we have done is put that emphasis into our policies and continued the agreement between Metro and York.

Mr Beer: That answer is simply not acceptable. There is no agreement on the part of York. The question remains that in that legislation you arbitrarily decided that's where it should go, and people simply say, "No, that's not fair, it's not equitable and it makes no sense."

My second question to the minister is another one around "why." The minister likes to present herself as being a strong defender of the environment. Indeed, she says she refuses to look at other options and alternatives because she feels so strongly about the alternative. The question that comes from all of us in York region is, how is it environmentally sound, environmentally progressive, in the 1990s to suggest that we should be creating a dump not the size of Keele Valley but half again as big, a dump that will be 130 feet high, a dump that could take 80 SkyDomes? How on earth in the 1990s is the outhouse technology of a megadump environmentally sound and acceptable to this government?

Hon Mrs Grier: What is acceptable and what is environmentally sound is that we try to reduce the amount of waste going into that site as much as we possibly can. I was interested today to get from some of the people who were at the demonstration, I understand, Citizens for a Safe Environment, a press release being very hard on Metro and York for not having taken seriously the policy established by your government of trying to get to 50% reduction by the year 2000. That's what has to happen, and when that happens perhaps we won't need the size of landfill you're suggesting.

Mr Beer: Clearly the people in York region, the people who were out at that demonstration today, include some of the strongest environmentalists in this province. I could mention parts of the region, I could mention names, I could mention mayors and municipal councillors who have fought very hard and indeed urged us as a government to do more for the environment. They are outraged at the possibility that there will be a dump in York region.

My final question is to the minister. Will she, here and now, today in this place make a firm commitment that over the next two weeks she will find some real time to sit down with the representatives of all the different community groups and organizations that have grown up around these sites, to meet with them and have a full discussion, where they can put their questions to her? Will the minister make that commitment here and now?

Hon Mrs Grier: I already made that commitment when I met with the groups a week or so ago. They indicated that they were coming together to form a coalition and would have a representative from each of the 57 groups, I think they described it, in one organization. I said when that had occurred and when the representatives had identified themselves and the leadership of the various groups emerged, I would be happy to sit down and have that discussion.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question, third party, the member for Markham.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The people of the greater Toronto area are angry; angry for a number of reasons at Bill 143, angry at the way this government is forcing dumps into the greater Toronto area but angry as well that this minister has not been prepared to meet with people in a way that would allow them to have dialogue.

I have instead for you today some of the slips that people have sent in from the Economist and the Sun where people are saying no to unacceptable dump sites in York-Durham. We have also a little present from students at Unionville public school to Mr Rae and yourself, along with some of the thinking of people in that area.

The concern they have, among many, many others, is that you and your government are not prepared to sit down and listen to the people. So instead of having it your way alone, I would like to extend an invitation to you to visit the 57 landfill sites in York, Durham and Peel so that you can see something of the problems that are going on there. What I will make sure will happen is that you will be treated with respect, as you should be, but the fact is that you will go out and see these environmentally sensitive areas, these farm lands, these areas that people are so concerned about. Will you accept this invitation to come and tour the sites?

Hon Mrs Grier: I regret to have to say to the member that I think he does nothing to help the situation by describing 57 landfill sites. There are 57 areas of the greater Toronto area which, after the development of environmental criteria and the application of those criteria to the area, have been identified as possible candidate sites. That number will be reduced to three by next year. It is important that people understand that there will not be 57 landfill sites throughout the greater Toronto area.

As I said in my response to the question from the member for York North, when the groups have been formed and have identified who they want to have as a representative, I've already agreed to meet with them.

Mr Cousens: That answer somehow goes in the face of the statement made by the member for Durham West when he was elected on September 6th and said, "We have a population that has asked for a credible government that will really listen to the people." He got elected on that issue, but now when the people want to have a chance to talk to the government they elected on September 6th it would appear that they're not able to have that opportunity to have those get-togethers that were so common before you were elected.

The people are now saying to you, Mrs Grier, that they don't want anything to do with the way you're pushing these proposed landfill sites on York, Durham and Peel. They're saying no way to having the land that grows our food become a dump. They're saying no way to having the stinking smell of garbage permeating their homes. They're saying no way to having sensitive parks and green spaces becoming dumps. They're saying no way to having our drinking water contaminated.

Will you somehow look at the other option of looking at Kirkland Lake as a viable option? Will you say yes to the people of York, Durham and Peel and open the discussion on waste options?

Hon Mrs Grier: Mr Speaker, this member has called continuously for an application of the Environmental Assessment Act to the site selection process. I know the member is familiar with the act, and the act is a planning process that by a process of elimination allows one to arrive at the best site: a site that will not take up a river valley, a site that will not contaminate water, a site that will not harm the environment. You don't go through that process by saying, "Let's pick Kirkland Lake; it happens to be available" and make that the site. You have to look at all the alternative sites within the area of site search. If you're going to say that the entire province is a candidate site --

Mr Sorbara: Oh, Ruth, will you stop it? That's not the issue.

The Speaker: Order, member for York Centre.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- for the waste from the greater Toronto area, then you look at every possible landfill throughout the entire province. The member knows that's not an acceptable way of dealing with the greater Toronto area's garbage.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr Cousens: That's not acceptable to this minister, but it's acceptable for you to go and break agreements between Metro and York region on Keele Valley; it's acceptable for you to break agreements on Britannia; it's acceptable if it's your way but it's not acceptable if it's what the people of the province of Ontario want. That's the issue.

I'll tell you, it's as close to a sense of the 1837 rebellion, where some 800 farmers from York and the areas north of Toronto came down and marched on Toronto, and they brought their sticks and they went and made a voice. Some of them were hanged, some of them went to the United States, some of them went elsewhere. I'll tell you this much, there were more people at the front of Queen's Park than there were involved in the rebellion of 1837.

We are responsible people. We are people who want to be listened to and who want to have another option and you're not giving us that option. We ask you, as Minister of the Environment and one who has fought for democratic rights, to look again at the option of a rail haul outside of Metropolitan Toronto. Will you at least look at that?

Hon Mrs Grier: The people of York region, as have been identified, are very concerned about this issue.

Interjections.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Go back to your apartment and take a rest.

Mr Cousens: Talk about sleaze. You're good at it, Gilles.

The Speaker: Would the minister take her seat. The member for Markham, that is not parliamentary. I would ask the member to withdraw the unparliamentary remark which he just uttered.

Mr Cousens: If I offended the honourable member and said something that is not in the character of this beautiful House, I withdraw it.

Hon Mrs Grier: As the member for York North and the member for Markham well know, there are very many people in York region who have indeed established themselves as environmentalists and are very much concerned about the issues we're debating here. I think the member does them a disservice by putting the debate in the framework of rebellion and 1837.

The opportunity that is provided by the Environmental Assessment Act is to bring to the debate all the environmental issues and all the debate about the merits of alternative sites that the member wishes and I know those people wish to engage in. That's the forum where the argument has to occur and that's the forum that will be most productive to an environmental solution to this issue.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): My question is to the Minister of Labour. For months we have been asking you to table an impact study into your labour legislation. To date you have refused. That leads us to believe one of two things: Either you haven't done a study, which I believe would then make you unfit to govern, or you've done one but you won't table it because you're afraid the impact study will confirm that the legislation will kill jobs.

Again to be clear, there are two options: Either you haven't done a study, or you've done one and you're afraid the legislation will kill the jobs. Minister, which one is it?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): In response to the member, I'd like to know how many impact studies we had from his government when it was in power.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Carr: And we wonder why people are cynical about politicians and the political process when we hear an answer like that from the Minister of Labour in 1992. This legislation will only create more jobs in the United States. Every study that has been done has said it will kill jobs and kill investment. Mr Minister, either produce one shred of evidence which shows there will be no job losses or admit that the legislation will kill jobs. Which is it, Minister?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I'd like to ask the member to repeat the question. I couldn't hear it with all the noise from across the way.

The Speaker: Would the member repeat the question.

Mr Carr: What I said in the question was that the legislation will only create more jobs in the United States. Every study that has been done said there will be job losses and investment will be killed as a direct result of your legislation. My question is this: Either produce one shred of evidence that proves there will not be any job losses or admit the legislation will kill jobs. What is it, Mr Minister?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: There have been a lot of polls. I wouldn't say there have been proper surveys. If I thought the legislation was going to kill jobs, I wouldn't be bringing it into the House.

Mr Carr: This government has $160,000 for your friend Wally Majesky to do a study on prep schools for union bosses and you've got $200,000 to study bike paths; yet the biggest piece of legislation the province will see from this destructive government and you refuse to do a study. It doesn't make any sense, Mr Minister. Why do you refuse to do a job impact study? Don't let the people believe us or you; do an impact study so the people will know very clearly what the job losses will be. My question is the same as the beginning: Are you afraid of what the results will be, Mr Minister?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I want to say I haven't had a question in the House yet that I'm afraid of. I may or may not be right on all the answers, but I certainly don't fear any of the questions. I would also like to say I think it's unfortunate that we see the day-after-day attack from certain members of this House on what they call union bosses, who do happen to have to get themselves elected, which is often not the case with some of the coalitions.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Eglinton.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Carr: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: That answer is totally unacceptable to the people of the province. I would like to go on the record as saying that I will be here at 6 o'clock, if it's acceptable to ask the question of the Minister of Labour again. It is totally unacceptable to the people of the province for a Minister of Labour on a piece of legislation --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. Briefly, as I have done on other occasions, I would ask members to please raise that particular point of order outside of the time allotted for oral questions. Of course the member must file the necessary paper at the table.

ROOMING HOUSES

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): My question is for the Minister of Housing. All members of this Legislature will remember the devastating tragedy of the fire that gutted the Rupert Hotel in December 1989, killed 10 people and left many others homeless.

In January 1991, as part of its anti-recession fund, the NDP government announced it would spend $3 million to upgrade privately owned rooming houses in Toronto so that they met fire, health and safety codes. Mr Speaker, I regret that I must bring before you today just the latest example of how the NDP government can take a perfectly fine idea and bungle it badly.

Eighteen months later, this renovation money, supposedly to come from last year's anti-recession funds, has not been spent, but even worse, the Minister of Housing has plunged the program into chaos. First there was no advertising so that rooming houses could apply. Instead the government sent representatives to selected private rooming houses and gave the owners a hard sell to enter the program.

Then the government misled the people with promises: promises that the program would be fast-tracked, promises that the renovations would be done quickly and in fact completed by March 31, promises that tenants would be able to remain in place while renovations took place. Instead the lives of these people have been disrupted and the renovations have still not occurred.

How can the minister justify making a shambles of a perfectly good idea?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I categorically reject that description of what has happened in our efforts to work with the Rupert Hotel Coalition, a community-based group which has worked in conjunction with the city of Toronto to try to develop a program which everyone knew was going to be hard to deliver. It has taken that coalition longer than it expected to be able to put a program in place. That coalition has in fact not been able to spend the money which was originally allocated through the anti-recession fund.

However, we have made a commitment at the Ministry of Housing that the moneys will be forthcoming through our regular programs and that the program can proceed as originally intended. If she has specific problems about a specific tenant or a specific rooming house, we would be glad to try to track down what the difficulty might have been, but the coalition has been working very hard on the project and to describe it as a shambles is I think most unfair to its work.

Ms Poole: It is totally unbecoming of the Minister of Housing to imply that I am casting aspersions on the Rupert Hotel Coalition. I am not. They are a fine group and doing fine work. It is your government that has bungled.

Let me give you an example, Madam Minister. Let me give you the example of Mrs X. Mrs X was approached by the government representatives in November of last year and given a very hard sell to apply and to enter the program. After she agreed to participate and when the plans were well along, she was told she would have to eject two tenants from the basement because one of the criteria was that there could not be tenants living in basements. She was told this would be temporary because the program was fast-tracked and because the renovation money was forthcoming and the program would be completed by March 31.

We are now into July and Mrs X's renovations haven't even started. To add insult to injury, she has been personally paying for those two basement tenants to live elsewhere while they are waiting for the renovations to be completed. Because she's on line for the ministry's renovation program, she is being constantly harassed by building inspectors for building, safety and health codes, but she can't satisfy the requirements until the ministry does the renovations.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member place her supplementary, please.

Ms Poole: Mr Speaker, this is my question. This woman is just representative of many who are in this catch-22 situation through no fault of their own. Minister, the program has fallen apart. What are you going to do about it?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I categorically reject the prejudgement of this member that the program has fallen apart. In fact the program development is being done by the Rupert Hotel Coalition in cooperation with the city of Toronto. If she would provide the so-called names of so-called ministry officials who have so-called harassed a so-called Mrs X, perhaps we could try to sort out her so-called information.

WOMEN IN ADVERTISING

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Mr Minister, I have a copy of a London Free Press

article dated July 4. According to this article, your ministry has published an ad for a Dolly Parton look-alike contest. It's in Fenelon Falls and I'm sure you know about it. Given the fact that this government has appropriately condemned sexism in advertising, can you explain why this ad appears in a government publication that has been funded by the Ontario taxpayers?

Hon Peter North (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): I can tell you that we were made quite aware of this problem in the ministry publication. I would like to apologize, first of all, to the women of Ontario, if they are offended by this and, second, say we will do our best to make sure it doesn't happen in one of our publications again.

Mrs Cunningham: I think perhaps a lot of us have learned things in this House, and that is that no one political party has a monopoly on the good things for Ontario explicitly for itself. I can say right now that many of us are personally disappointed that this did in fact appear, especially given that this government and the Premier expelled or suspended or got rid of the member for Welland-Thorold for appearing as a Sunshine Boy in one of the local newspapers, and now we see in this advertisement -- and I know I'm being particularly tough on the minister because I feel that way today -- this is what this ad says, it promises "Ladies' full bathing suit, bikini and bum contest."

Minister, will you publicly, on top of what you've already done, condemn this kind of contest in the province of Ontario and, second, assure this House -- or reassure this House in case I didn't hear you correctly -- that this kind of advertising will never take place in a government advertisement again?

Hon Mr North: If I'm correct in saying so, there are about 1,700 listings of events in this particular publication, and there are about 20 publications in the ministry, so you can see that there is every opportunity for a mistake to be made. What has happened in this particular publication is a mistake, and again I would like to be the first to admit that it is a mistake and we will do our best to ensure that it doesn't happen again.

GAMBLING

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. On April 30 the Treasurer announced in his budget that casino gambling was going to be coming to Ontario. This is an announcement that was met with a great deal of excitement and anticipation in the city of Windsor. I have in my hand some of the letters I've been receiving from the people in Windsor and area in support of this initiative, and I say "some of the letters" because I've got about 1,500 to 2,000 letters supporting this initiative.

I also have a copy of a resolution from the city of Windsor council unanimously supporting this idea. I also have a very detailed business plan prepared by the city's casino convention centre committee that proposes a single-site, government-operated facility. I also have in my hand a letter from the mayor and the committee of the city of Windsor expressing some concern about the minister's remarks that it may take up to a year to have casinos up and running here in the province. My question to the minister is, what can she explain to us as the reason for this delay?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I guess it's debatable whether or not it's seen as a delay. No decisions whatsoever have been made on the timing of casinos. I said at that time that it could take up to a year, speculating, just in terms of the work that needs to be done to prepare, as we've never before in Ontario gotten into the casino business.

We'll be working with and consulting with interested communities and other stakeholders, organizations such as the horse racing industry and the charitable organizations, other municipalities which have interests other than Windsor -- there are some others out there -- and making sure we address the kinds of issues that have been fact brought up by people in this House and in communities: issues around ownership, who's going to run it; issues around regulatory and enforcement processes. Those kinds of things, some of which are very complex, we need to look at carefully. I think the consultation process we have to put in place --

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

Hon Ms Churley: -- as we promised people, is quite important.

Mr Lessard: I can understand that a number of those issues are important and that there is a consultation process that might need to take place, but I'd like to know what specific steps the minister may be taking to expedite this matter.

Hon Ms Churley: We have recently set up a special project team. It should be up and running, I hope, by the middle to end of July. That project team will specifically be addressing the kinds of issues I briefly mentioned today. I should be making an announcement some time in the near future, some time later on in July, about that project team and some further details about where we're heading from here.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Lawrence.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): My question, too, is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Once again, this is a topic that's uppermost in people's minds. Your member from the Windsor area is obviously very interested in seeing casino gambling move forward. That city has stated its real desire to see casino gambling in the city of Windsor.

I want to ask the minister -- as she's announcing today that she's going to make an announcement about what specific plans she is going to put in place for consultation -- who she's talking to today and what studies she has undertaken with respect to the impact of casino gambling in the various communities that have been proposed.

I asked her that question several months ago when this plan was introduced and I still have, as of this date, not received an answer with respect to specific studies she has undertaken for the very real question of impact on the communities that will be affected by this. Does she have an answer for me today?

Hon Ms Churley: As I said in response to the previous question, we have the project team, which will be up and running very soon, and that team will be looking at and doing the consulting on a number of the issues you have raised. As I said, I will be making an announcement on that soon.

There have been a number of consultations, formal and informal, that have taken place over the past few months with various components of the horse racing industry and some charitable organizations and other interested people. There are a lot of interested people here. They will be consulted further, but the project team will take over that responsibility once it's up and running.

Mr Cordiano: Why all the secrecy around who's heading this up? Why not just be clear about where it's going and who's going to head this up and who are the people who are being consulted? We still haven't got those answers. The people of Ontario are very interested in this. They want to know in what direction you're headed, what plans you're putting in place. With the vagueness of this answer, one would almost come to the conclusion that this government has no intention of moving forward with this and that in fact it might have had a change of heart.

It's not inconceivable that this government might change its mind on another substantive issue. Could that be possible, that this minister and this government is leading down a path it has no intention of pursuing? Is that really what's going to happen here? Or give us some details, come up with some names.

Hon Ms Churley: Cabinet, as I've said, has already approved the project team. There's no secret about the project team. It will be reporting to my ministry. There will be a number of other ministries represented on this project team. As I said in earlier announcements, we are going about this in a very controlled and careful way. That is the process we have undertaken. We will be very shortly making another announcement as to the consultation process that we will be setting up soon.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, in your speech yesterday to the Senior Citizens' Consumer Alliance for Long-Term Care Reform, you reconfirmed the NDP preference for the not-for-profit sector in the future delivery of long-term care services in this province. You also admitted that you do not have the money to reform the long-term care system in a major way within the next three years.

I want to avoid a repeat of what is happening in the child care sector, where your government is bound and determined to get rid of private operators regardless of the cost to taxpayers. In fact, in my area of the province, when we hear the NDP use the term "not for profit," we grab on to our wallets and duck for cover.

Private home care agencies employ over 18,000 people, provide over nine million hours of care annually and cover 41% of homemaking services in Ontario. Minister, if you do not have the money to reform the long-term care system, why are you even contemplating eliminating the private sector from the delivery of home care services?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): Yesterday, and I'd be pleased to do it again today -- I'd like to confirm our government's preference for not-for-profit delivery of services in the area of human services, particularly in the area of health care and particularly as we see a shift from hospital and insured services that have always been covered under the principle of universality under the Canada Health Act to a different kind of delivery of services that aren't currently covered under the Canada Health Act. We would like to see those principles carried out into that sector.

Perhaps I could correct one thing the member said, or clarify, because he is technically correct in saying that I indicated we can't spend the money in three years. The question that was put to me was whether we could spend the five-year, multi-year budget, and speed it up and get to the $647 million by a three-year time frame. I said I didn't think that was possible given the fiscal outlook.

I did, however, have a very direct exchange in a question and answer period with an individual who put a question much like the member of the third party's with respect to this issue in which he wanted to know what it meant in practical terms. In practical terms right now, let me say that I'm not about to take decisions that are going to destabilize the delivery of services within this area. I do, however, think it's very important that we look, as we're planning for expansion in the future, to see how we support our preference for the not-for-profit delivery of service.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Minister, you say you're not prepared to make decisions that will destabilize the situation. If you read the Consumers' Report on Long-Term Care Reform, presented by the senior citizens' consumer alliance, which represents one million senior citizens in this province, this report clearly says that your government's decisions are leading to a destabilized situation for seniors and health care services in Ontario.

The decisions by you, your Treasurer and the Minister of Community and Social Services have resulted in cuts to chronic care beds in chronic care hospitals; cuts to chronic care beds in acute care hospitals; cuts to homes for the aged through the Minister of Community and Social Services; cuts to nursing home beds.

Madam Minister, all these seniors have to live somewhere, the frail and elderly have to go somewhere, and when you tell a group that you're not going to have the funds necessary to have a smooth, sensitive transition for these seniors, and when you say you're going to continue to show your preference for the non-profit sector, thereby eliminating a whole host of support services that are provided economically in the community and in the home, the question that seniors asked you yesterday that you don't wish to raise today is this: Why is it that with all the cuts that seniors have experienced in health care over the last couple of years in the name of long-term care reform, they now have to listen to you say, "Sorry, seniors, we won't have the funds to make sure you're not out on the street from these health care services" that they've been promised --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the member complete his supplementary.

Mr Jackson: -- by your government and the previous government to the millions of seniors and citizens who need extended health care services in this province?

Hon Ms Lankin: I know the member is genuine in his concern for the plight of senior citizens, but let me tell you that he does a disservice to the senior citizens' consumer coalition itself and its report and to the kind of dialogue that is going on between government and consumers of these services with some of the absolutely inaccurate statements that he made in that question.

Let me say and clarify yet again that I did not say to anyone that we did not have the money --

Mr Jackson: That's crap. You're not reading the report. Why would you lie about that?

Hon Ms Lankin: Mr Speaker, I'm not sure exactly what I heard across the floor.

Mr Jackson: You said the report was a lie. I quoted from the report.

Hon Ms Lankin: I think he simply said --

The Speaker: Order. This House stands recessed until the call of the Chair. I ask all members if they would quietly and quickly leave the chamber.

The House recessed at 1445.

The Speaker: Had the Minister of Health completed her response?

Hon Ms Lankin: I wanted to say to the member, before we took the short recess, that a couple of his statements and assertions were incorrect. I ask him to look at those carefully because I think the conclusions they lead him to are erroneous conclusions, but I can understand how he gets to point B from point A when he starts off at the wrong point A.

Let me be clear around the statement I made around the budget for long-term care. I did not say that there was not enough money to implement our plans for long-term care, that the $647 million wasn't there. That's a multi-year budget that's planned to be spent and to get up to those additional new moneys in five years. What I said in answer to a question is that I didn't think we could speed it up and get it there in three years.

Also, with respect to the chronic care hospitals, we haven't made cuts to chronic care hospitals and we're currently working with the Council of Chronic Care Hospitals of Ontario around problems a couple of hospitals face with deficits that have led them to propose closures of beds, but that's an issue that is ongoing.

Let me say in general with respect to the report from the senior citizens' consumer alliance that I think it is just a dynamic, comprehensive piece of work, and the thing that excites me about it is that there are ideas in there that neither the third party nor the official opposition nor the government ever came up with when we looked at the issues of developing a program for delivery of long-term care. The reason is that we have moved very directly to involve consumers in leading the consultation on the report.

The Speaker: Could the minister complete her response, please.

Hon Ms Lankin: They have come forward with a tremendous, far-reaching set of recommendations and we're giving them serious consideration. I said from the beginning that the really important thing was getting the answer right and that our report went out there to provoke debate. It has done that and we're really anxious to work with people on solutions.

INVESTMENT FUND

Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): My question is to the Treasurer and it deals with the Ontario investment fund. Our government released a discussion paper on April 14, 1992.

Subsequent to the release of this discussion paper, Mr Treasurer, I've received some calls from members of OMERS, which is the Ontario municipal employees retirement system -- not so much the board but the members themselves. Apparently they've received what I perceive to be some misinformation about the intent of the OIF, particularly as it pertains to the voluntary aspect of contributing to this fund. Could the Treasurer perhaps clarify for myself and for my constituents who are members of OMERS who have these concerns?

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): "OMARS" is where Bob Rae has his rice pudding.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): This is a tough act to follow, Mr Speaker.

The member for Brantford is quite right. There's been some concern about the Ontario investment fund from some folks out there, particularly from the OMERS people, and I regret that very much.

We announced the Ontario investment fund and I guess in our very first throne speech indicated that because there were gaps in investment, and in particular gaps in expertise out there for more creative investments in high value added, knowledge-based kinds of industries, there was a need for this kind of fund, and indeed other jurisdictions have these kinds of funds as well.

There are some members of OMERS who have the mistaken impression that there's something compulsory about this program. It is totally voluntary. If the unions, public sector unions and others -- it's not just coming from public sector funds; others as well -- want to make a contribution to the health and the growth of this economy in Ontario, we encourage them to do so, but there's absolutely nothing about it that is compulsory.

Mr Ward: I guess the opposition isn't used to my Brantford accent.

We are in a period of, I believe, consultation as far as the fund is concerned. When will the fund become a reality? Is there some type of timetable?

Hon Mr Laughren: At the present time, an advisory committee has been struck from various sectors out there, including the financial community, and they are working now, through this advisory committee, to develop an implementation program for the fund in order to determine what model it will be, exactly what will be the shape of that investment fund.

We hope their work will be completed in the next few months and that we can get on with the establishment of the fund, because it really is the case that while the OMERS board has been somewhat difficult in this regard, it's a wise investment not only for the surplus funds, but also for Ontario. It will bring us into the 20th century when it comes to the establishment of funds and putting money, in a very strategic way, into the kinds of industries where right now there is a lack of funds. That is generally acknowledged to be the case, so we hope to have it up and running as soon as the advisory committee has completed its work.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, I raise a question today that is of real concern to the people of Quinte and other parts of the province. As you will see, the matter concerns ambulance services. Effective June 11, 1992, the Ministry of Health ambulance services branch has ordered that as a cost-saving measure, call-back crews not be called in on duty when the first ambulance leaves on an emergency call.

In our area these new conditions mean that an ambulance responding to a life-threatening emergency like a car accident or heart attack could take from 14 to 18 minutes, rather than the regular four to eight minutes, to respond. I believe this significant increase in response time could have grave consequences. Minister, might I have your comments and possible reconsideration on this matter.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I'd be pleased to take some time to talk with the member in greater detail about the concerns particular to his region and the decisions on how it's affecting service in that direct region.

We certainly are facing a number of difficult decisions with respect to the amount of money we have available in the ministry's budget this year and the amount we have transferred of the 1% to our private operator transfer payment agencies out there. The management decisions that have been made in all cases have looked at what the record has been in terms of utilization of backup crews that have been called in to be on call, how frequent it is and what impact they think this kind of change in the organization of service and on-call services will have. I would like to have an opportunity to review the details of what you bring forward and to speak to you specifically on that.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I want to echo the member for Quinte's serious concern with ambulance service in this province. In my riding of Algoma-Manitoulin, there's been a decrease in the availability of ambulance services. The ambulance services located on Manitoulin and Espanola have had to cut their service on weekends considerably because of your government's policy.

We've lost a total of 10 shifts in the area. This means a drop in the backup ability of these services and a substantial decrease in the transferability of the trauma and testing facilities at the regional referral centre in Sudbury. In Elliot Lake, physicians have expressed their concern about the ambulance service arrangements. In addition, the backup service to my constituents and the primary service to the people of Sudbury, the Sudbury ambulance service, is also being cut, affecting not only Sudburians but also my constituents in other outlying areas.

I raised this issue with the minister by way of letter in early June. The minister would know that the unions have also expressed a concern and are awaiting a positive response. Minister, I just ask that you assure my constituents, the people of Sudbury region and all northerners that their lives and wellbeing are not being put in danger by these service cuts.

Hon Ms Lankin: I can certainly assure the member that we will work, wherever we can, to try and make sure that we continue the quality of services. I can obviously say that I will be able to increase the amount of money we're transferring to the private operators out there. We have transferred 1% We have to manage within that 1% for those agencies out there that we've transferred it to.

You will know that an ambulance services consumer report had been commissioned to look at the delivery of emergency services in Ontario that is being consulted on right now. We will be receiving it back very shortly. I believe there are a number of recommendations in terms of better organization of services, ending the duplication of administration and trying to put those dollars into direct delivery of service. I will try and move very quickly on positive recommendations that have community consent and support through the consultation period, because I understand the kinds of concerns you raise on behalf of your constituents.

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): To the Minister of Labour, Minister, on a number of occasions you have refused to tell Ontario farm families if the recommendations of the Task Force on Agricultural Labour Relations will indeed occur. When the report was released, the government announcements said nothing about adopting the number one recommendation of the labour task force on agriculture. This recommendation was made by both farmers and union representatives. Minister, please confirm that this recommendation will be adopted by the government for separate legislation for agriculture, if indeed you are listening.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I have been listening, and as I indicated before, I've had a number of talks with the farm community. We are still looking at what the final draft will be in terms of the recommendations the committee seems to have agreed upon.

Mr Villeneuve: I have difficulty with that, because the report's been available for quite some time. Agriculture is very concerned about being included in the Ontario Labour Relations Act. Recognizing that agricultural products by and large are perishable, we cannot compare them with any other matter such as steel, the car industry or whatever.

If lockouts and strikes are not going to occur, don't you think this does not fit in with the OLRA as you've set it up and that you should be turning it over to your colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food so that it could be operated where people know what's happening within the agricultural industry?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The member seems to forget that the report that was issued and the recommendations that were made were unanimous, both the union and the farm community. When you get a report that does the work they've done, you take a careful look at how it can be implemented, and that's exactly what we're doing.

NATIONAL HOUSING PROGRAM

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): My question is to the Minister of Housing. Recently the minister met with her counterparts from across the country at a federal-provincial conference and I was wondering if the minister could report to the House on the outcome of those discussions.

I want to tell you that the residents of my community, as well as the communities of Guelph, Waterloo and Cambridge, recently got together in order to look at the whole question of the federal government's mean-spirited decision to get out of the federal housing program. In that the federal minister of housing was at the meeting with the Minister of Housing from Ontario and her provincial counterparts, I'm wondering if they got anywhere with the federal minister of housing.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): We did have a meeting of federal, provincial and territorial ministers of housing on Monday last. It was, in my view, a very successful meeting in that I felt, as ministers from the territories and provinces, we had made clear to the federal minister the impact of the federal budget cuts and our very well based concerns about whether a national housing program would be continued in the future.

We found that in the Yukon this year, it will be impossible for that territory to continue to deliver housing through the national housing program because of the small size of its allocation. We found in the Northwest Territories, unless there's an answer by September, they won't know whether they can build units next year. Further, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland have indicated they will not be able to carry on with the national housing program next year if they don't get further allocations, all of which have been dampened and cut back by the federal budget.

I think the federal minister understood. On behalf of all ministers, I have written to the Prime Minister and to Mr Mazankowski, the federal Minister of Finance, to lay out our concerns and to indicate to them that we have asked the federal housing minister, Mr MacKay, to follow up on our concerns and make it clear to his cabinet colleagues that if we're to have a national housing program in Canada in the future, the federal government is going to have to make sure the resources are available.

MOTIONS

CONSIDERATION OF BILLS

Mr Cooke moves that standing order 85, respecting notice of committee hearings, be suspended for consideration of Bills Pr37, Pr38, Pr48, Pr53, Pr56 and Pr57 by the standing committee on regulations and private bills on Wednesday, July 8, 1992.

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS

INVESTMENT FUND

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition signed by in excess of 265 people. It's addressed to the Parliament of Ontario and it says:

"Whereas the government of Ontario plans to set up an investment fund for the following pensions: OMERS, teachers' superannuation fund, Ontario Hydro, the public service superannuation fund, Ontario Hospital Association and Ontario colleges,

"The following members of OMERS are opposed to the proposed appropriation of pension funds by the government of Ontario."

I have also signed this petition.

LANDFILL SITES

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have 10,000 petitions but have been told to hand them in only 2,000 at a time so that we have a chance for this House to realize that there are many people concerned.

"We, the undersigned, hereby call on the government of Ontario to discontinue the consideration of locating a waste disposal site in Markham M6, the 11th concession south of Locust Hill, and in all other areas that are located in the immediate vicinity of environmentally sensitive areas of York region."

I have 2,000 petitions. I just hope the government realizes that people are very concerned and upset and want it to do something about it.

TAXATION

Mr Mark Morrow (Wentworth East): I have a petition signed by 6,800 people to Premier Bob Rae and Treasurer Floyd Laughren.

"We, the Canadian taxpayers, are signing our names to this petition to protest the $3.10 unjust governmental levy put on refundable beer cans. This is jeopardizing many jobs unnecessarily in the Canadian food and packaging industry. These jobs can and will become unemployment and welfare statistics. We will not stand by in an already unreliable economy and risk valuable jobs on an unnecessary tax.

"We, the people, urge the government to rectify this mistake and keep the jobs where they belong in Ontario."

LANDFILL SITES

Mr Charles Beer (York North): Rising out of today's demonstration, I have a petition signed by some 6,500 people from the township of East Gwillimbury. I should also note that the hat I have was presented at the same time. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas the town of East Gwillimbury has traditionally been a mixture of agriculture and residential land, both areas would be drastically affected by a megadump. The town possesses a significant amount of land which has historically been and remains devoted primarily to agriculture; and

"Whereas the historical significance of our area is typified by Sharon Temple, its many patrons and the pastoral quality has considerable significance to this area; and

"Whereas the effects of a megadump on the water supply of this area would be catastrophic. The township of East Gwillimbury supplies water to the Newmarket and Aurora area,

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

"We oppose the provincial government's proposal to take prime agricultural land with historical significance in East Gwillimbury to turn into Metro and York's megadump;

"We further petition the Legislative Assembly to renew their efforts to seek and entertain alternatives to landfill."

I have signed this petition in support.

GAMBLING

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Mr Speaker, I'm pleased to table a petition, signed by members of the official board of the Walton Memorial United Church in my riding of Oakville South, which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there is much evidence to substantiate that everywhere casino gambling has been established it has generated undesirable side effects in the form of prostitution, theft, organized crime, illegal drugs and political corruption; and

"Whereas no amount of regulation or police enforcement seems to be able to control the growth of these deviant factors where such gambling exists; and

"Whereas history teaches us that gambling and games of chance erode moral character as they promote the notion that one should look to get a quick windfall or something for nothing, thus promoting a strong belief in fate and luck rather than in hard work and thrift; and

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

"Whereas gambling, particularly casino gambling, produces in many people a terrible addiction, every bit as potent as addiction to alcohol, and the principal victims of this addiction are often the families who become charges on the welfare system of the state; and

"Whereas any revenue benefit, necessarily a small part of the total Ontario budget after meeting the additional expenses of regulation, policing and welfare, would unlikely be sufficient to offset the social costs;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to declare that it will not legalize casino gambling."

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by 54 residents of Middlesex county. This petition was sponsored and circulated by the municipal councils of the county of Middlesex and has been signed by citizens from Glencoe, Strathroy, Kerwood and Granton. They petition the Legislature to set aside the Brant report and request that the annexation of lands in Middlesex by the city of London be reduced, that agricultural land be preserved and that the rural way of life that we treasure so in Middlesex be maintained. I have signed my name to this petition.

ONTARIO STUDENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario:

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

"The provincial government of Ontario proposes even further cuts to the Ontario student assistance program. As a group, we must stand up and voice our concern for this senseless act of neglect. We are fed up with the constant cutting of OSAP. Stop destroying our futures."

This petition is signed by 253 young people whose further education is in jeopardy because of the cuts to OSAP and the increase in university and college fees. I have signed this petition.

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition signed by approximately 60 individuals, and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature to it as well.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario as well, and it reads:

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

This was orchestrated by an event, a seminar at Don Bosco school. There were actually three communities that participated. I'm going to attach my signature to this as well, because I do think it's important.

COURT RULING

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, in support of the mother of Debra Pauline Williams Ellul, draw to the attention of the House the following:

"That the right to appeal the decision made in Debra Williams Ellul murder acquitting Guy Ellul of all charges be granted based on the fact that the decision not to allow the appeal does not accurately reflect the public's abhorrence and unacceptability of the outcome of this trial."

The petition is signed by residents of Hamilton, Oakville, Burlington, Stoney Creek, Annan and Orono, and I've attached my signature.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My petition is from Paris, Streetsville, Windsor and Brampton. I hope I pronounce this right. I don't have a Brampton accent.

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

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

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

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

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

These were collected without any assistance from Jack Layton in the Ministry of Health, and I'll affix my signature there as follows.

FRUIT GROWERS

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I have two petitions, one from the Jordan Station United Church and the other from the Lundy's Lane United Church, both of which say the following:

"Whereas the Ontario tender-fruit growers are facing financial crisis;

"Therefore, we, the members of the Niagara presbytery of the United Church of Canada, petition the Ontario government to act immediately to find a solution to the economic viability of tender-fruit farms.

"Whereas the Ontario tender-fruit growers are facing financial crisis; and

"Whereas the Ontario government is undertaking an agricultural land protection program,

"Therefore, we, the members of the said churches, oppose restrictions on the tender-fruit land until economic viability of the tender-fruit growers is restored."

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition presented to me by the Cornwall and District Labour Council, which reads:

"We, the undersigned, voters of the Cornwall area, support the proposed amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act."

STUDENT SAFETY

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition signed by about 300 people. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Matthew Morten died tragically at his residence at York University as a result of a severed brachial artery caused by a shard of glass;

"Whereas the glass which caused Matthew's death broke free from the door of his residence and was not safety glass;

"Whereas the regional coroner from Metropolitan Toronto has refused the family's request for an inquest and has indicated that it was economically unsound to make universities replace non-safety glass, although a recommendation has been sent to universities by the coroner asking only that they consider replacing such glass;

"Whereas there are other issues which should also be addressed, including the late response of the ambulance because it became lost on campus and the inability of the attendants to carry Matthew out on a stretcher due to the narrowness of the stairs;

"Whereas ignoring the abovementioned circumstances may lead to another death or serious injury,

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

"That an inquest into the death of Matthew Morten be ordered immediately to ensure that the safety of other Ontario students is safeguarded."

I have affixed my signature thereto.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I have a petition signed by some 100 people of Ottawa-Carleton. It reads as follows:

"I, as a resident of Ottawa, wish to make known my views on the approach of the government to Sunday shopping. I am against the government's position of introducing Sunday shopping, as it interferes with the development of family life in Ontario and deprives employees of a common day of rest."

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario signed by 120 residents of Middlesex county.

"That the Legislature 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 have affixed my signature.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is signed by residents of the province of Ontario. I have affixed my signature to this in agreement with it.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): "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 and procedures in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

This has been signed by constituents in my riding in Etobicoke and I will affix my name to that as well.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time allotted for the presentation of petitions has expired.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Pursuant to standing order 33, the member for Oakville South has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Labour concerning impact studies on job losses. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 40,

An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Collective Bargaining and Employment / Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui a trait à la négociation collective et à l'emploi.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Waterloo North has the floor.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Yesterday we began our debate of Bill 40, and we had an opportunity to hear from the Minister of Labour as well as from the Labour critic for the official opposition. Last night I had the opportunity to reflect on the comments that had been made by the minister yesterday and to reflect on the objectives he spoke about, some of the objectives he was hoping could be accomplished by passing these reforms; objectives, by the way, that I believe everyone in the province would agree with.

The minister talked about the need for consultation. He talked about the need for labour peace. We all agree that those are needs that need to be recognized and achieved. Indeed, I have received hundreds of letters, faxes, phone calls, and in personal conversation, and these are needs people wish to see achieved.

Then the minister went on to say that he had participated in an unprecedented public and private consultation process, that he had talked to many people, that the ministry had listened to many people. Yes, there may have been unprecedented consultation both public and private, but it was not real consultation. Why not? Every participant was being forced to respond to the original union-driven agenda, and the bill we have today, Bill 40, contains only union proposals. There is not one proposal from management. Why go through the charade of consultation if you are not going to incorporate the views of all the participants?

The minister spoke about the need for more cooperation and participation between labour and business. I think we need to clarify something at this point. When we talk about labour, we need to make sure that we are talking about all men and women in this province, not only those who are unionized, because only about 35% of the workforce is unionized. Yes, we do need cooperation and we do need participation between labour and business if we're going to herald in a new era of prosperity, and we do need to build partnerships. We agree with the minister's objectives.

However, why did the process the minister embarked on not allow for that cooperation and for that building of partnerships? That is going to be much more difficult today because this legislation destroys the delicate balance of power and tilts it in favour of unions.

The minister spoke yesterday about the need to preserve basic human rights and freedoms. Again, we all agree with that. There is nothing more precious than our basic human rights and our freedoms. However, I want to tell you that there are many people in this province who fear that this legislation will reduce individual human rights and freedoms in favour of trade union rights.

The minister spoke about the need to reduce industrial conflict and he told us that the replacement worker measure he was introducing, which was similar to Quebec's, had contributed to industrial peace in Quebec. We know that this is simply not true. As I pointed out yesterday, Quebec has lost nearly one million more days through strikes than Ontario despite the fact that it has a substantially lower population base and a smaller workforce. Since 1978, Quebec has suffered 20% more strikes than Ontario. Surely we do not want to emulate the Quebec record, as it certainly does not contribute to industrial peace.

The minister spoke about the tremendous changes that were made to the consultation document. Again we all agree that those changes were needed, but in reality, if we take a look at Bill 40 we know the agenda was only tinkered with. There was no substantive change made; there was no new amendment added from the other participants.

The minister spoke about the need to usher in the new era of peace and non-confrontation. Again we all agree. However, if those are indeed the objectives of this government and this minister, why did the government not bring labour and management together from the outset to review Ontario's labour relations system and make recommendations for constructive changes that would have addressed all the issues instead of concentrating only on the Ontario Labour Relations Act, because the OLRA deals only with unionization. It deals only with the 35% of workers who are unionized; it completely ignores the rest. Why were the concerns of the rest of workers, the non-unionized workers, not addressed?

People have spoken to me, and I know they've spoken to you, and they're asking for workplace changes. But they're not asking for unionization; they're asking for the enforcement of the Employment Standards Act. You've talked about the women who are in the workforce and you've talked about the minorities. Well, I've met with some of those groups, I've met with some of those very poorly paid individuals who work hard in the city of Toronto, and what they wanted was the enforcement of the Employment Standards Act. It wasn't unionization. Why are the concerns of these individuals not being addressed? Why are you focusing only on the unionized worker?

Even Steven Langdon, the NDP's industry critic at the federal government level in the Financial Post of July 6, 1992 -- this is what it says: "Even Langdon admits that his provincial counterparts mishandled labour reform by not including the concerns of Ontario business." This is what he says: "One of the things you want to do is make sure you don't come in and say 'We've got all the answers.'"

That's what this government tried to do. It came in and pretended it had all the answers. We're still dealing with the original 30-point wish list that was introduced by the minister. There is not one other agenda item that has been contributed by anyone else other than the union movement.

If this government had brought labour and management together from the outset rather than pitting one side against the other, and had built a cooperative model of labour relations through consensus building, there would not be the economic uncertainty in the province today that is contributing to lost investment and jobs, and there wouldn't be the feeling of frustration among people that the government isn't listening to anyone but union leaders.

If the government had done this, then people could have believed. If you had really listened and if you had brought people together in a true consultation process, then people in this province would have believed you were sincere about the objectives you spoke about yesterday.

Regrettably, there has been little evidence of cooperation, consultation or consensus-building on this issue. At a time when it is more important than ever that workers and management set aside their differences and work together to compete in the global economy, this government, by its action in the area of labour law reform, has created a crisis on the labour front where none existed. It's going to take years to mend the fences, and it was totally unnecessary.

Do you wonder why people are upset? Do you wonder why the three coalition groups, Project Economic Growth, the All Business Coalition and the More Jobs Coalition, were formed? Do you wonder why business leaves the province and does not expand and why no new investment comes in? It's because of the process this government used.

The minister rushed through the report of the Burkett committee in the spring of 1991 and wholeheartedly approved of the radical proposals submitted by the union representatives, saying -- and I quote -- they would "level the playing field." He totally ignored the recommendations of the management representatives. Nowhere in the government process did the government allow for consensus-building on this issue, even though the three coalition groups have been asking for tripartite discussions between government, labour and management since November 1991.

This government wonders why people are upset? Bill 40 contains the most radical pro-union set of labour reforms ever proposed in a single package in any jurisdiction in Canada and tilts the balance of power in favour of unions, yet this government has never been able to demonstrate a need for this legislation.

I can understand the government's desire to see some changes made to our labour laws, but in something as sensitive as labour relations it is important that you get it right the first time: to cooperate, to consult and to build consensus, and not the adversarial atmosphere and the polarization the government has created in this province today.

A task force of government, labour and management should have been set up to study the current situation and make recommendations for change through consensus. Indeed, the funny thing is that the Ontario Ministry of Labour has used that model. They have used the cooperative model of labour relations to study the grievance arbitration process. In that case they had a representative of labour, a representative of management and an arbitrator.

The Swan committee worked by consensus and only made recommendations that were supported by all three members. This committee's report provides evidence that a win-win result is possible when people are committed to working together to find mutually beneficial solutions to existing problems. Why was that not used in labour relations reforms?

If we're going to enhance labour-management cooperation in the province, as the minister desires and as we all desire, and if we're going to make our province more competitive on a global scale, this government must not favour one side and use the one-sided agenda; it must build a cooperative model of labour relations through a cooperative consensus-building model of policy development. Unfortunately, that was not done. That's why people in this province are so concerned about the impact of labour law reform.

I'd like to turn my attention now to focus on some of the specific changes within Bill 40. As I said before, we already have the most comprehensive labour legislation in North America. The changes in Bill 40 have been cherry-picked from jurisdictions throughout North America and Europe. Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the reforms will improve cooperation between labour and management. In fact, because of the environment that's been created, we wonder how long it's going to take before we see the cooperation we had before.

The purpose of Bill 40 first and foremost is to facilitate the widespread unionization of Ontario workers and give more power to unions and union leaders. The bill provides absolutely no changes for employees who are opposed to being unionized. Indeed, many people in this province agree and are afraid that the changes will eventually take away the rights, the freedoms, of workers. The cards are going to be stacked against the 65% of Ontario workers who today, for many valid reasons, do not belong to a union and have no desire to join one. Bill 40 is going to reduce individual employee rights in favour of trade union rights, and that is the area that is of greatest concern to me.

The minister talked about the need to enhance basic human rights and freedoms. Unfortunately the legislation we have before us is not going to allow that to happen, and I will expand on that further in a few minutes.

Let's take a look at the changes. I'd like to start with the replacement worker proposal. These reforms concerning the replacement worker will make life interesting if there is a strike situation. Up until now, an employer in this province had certain options if his workers refused to accept his offer and went on strike. He could bring in management people from other stores or other plants and he could continue to operate. That will be prohibited under Bill 40. In the past, during prolonged strikes and extreme situations an employer could bring in new workers to keep the plant going.

No way: Under the new replacement worker proposal, even if some of the unionized workers want to cross the picket line and continue to work during a strike, this will not be allowed by law.

By limiting an employer's ability to operate during a strike and servicing its customers, you take away -- and this is what is so important -- the ability to keep jobs in Ontario, because many key sectors, such as the automotive industry, have asked the government to consider the economic impact of putting critical supply at risk in a just-in-time manufacturing environment. Already because of these proposals some automotive parts manufacturers are experiencing discrimination because US buyers fear supply interruptions if Bill 40 is passed.

If you care about the ability to keep jobs in Ontario, I would suggest that you make some changes to the replacement worker section, because the replacement worker

section is going to do the same thing in Ontario as it did in Quebec. What did it do in Quebec? Three things: It forced Quebec business to construct other plants in Ontario or south of the border to fulfil contractual obligations, it forced companies to move, or it forced them to close because of a strike they could not win.

How can management have any hope of reaching a reasonable solution when a strike effectively puts them out of business? How long can they stay in business with this kind of threat? How long will the workers in this province have jobs if companies close down? In today's tough economic times these provisions, which will contribute to further job loss and investment, are simply unacceptable.

Let's take a further look at the replacement worker section. As I said before, it's going to prohibit an employer from using not only managerial and supervisory personnel who are not employed at the struck location, but also any person hired or engaged between the day of notice to commence bargaining is given and the end of the strike or lockout as well as the striking or locked-out employees. They will no longer voluntarily be able to return to work, even if they choose, until the union decides to end the work stoppage.

The only people who can work are the managers, the supervisors and the non-bargaining-unit employees at the struck location. However, they also have the right to refuse to do struck work.

Although the union could not invoke the restrictions on the use of replacement workers unless it has received a mandate to strike from 60% of those participating in a secret ballot vote, most strike votes are in excess of 60%. Even though the bill does exempt two categories of essential services from the replacement worker provision, employers who provide essential services will be required to notify the union of their intention to use replacement workers, and disputes will be settled by the OLRB on an expedited basis. Any dispute over replacements will be heard by a single vice-chair of the board. The burden of proving that an employer has not acted contrary to the

section lies with the employer. What a shift in the balance of power to unions and the Ontario Labour Relations Board and away from employers. The balance has been tilted.

The consequences of this proposal to ban replacement workers are numerous, but I'd like to mention just a few. It will definitely tilt the economic balance of power in favour of unions. It's going to impede the operation of an employer. It's going to prevent the employer from operating his plant and filling customer orders. In essence, the strike's going to become an economic blockade. As well, if the auto parts manufacturers cannot meet their just-in-time delivery commitments, the Big Three auto makers may be forced to source their parts from the United States.

Since employees cannot cross a picket line to return to work even if they do not agree with their union representatives, it could create economic hardship. What about the single parent struggling to raise her or his family who wants to return to work, who doesn't agree with the union leadership? That person no longer has the right to work. This is a significant intrusion into employee freedom. This is an intrusion into basic human rights and freedoms. These individuals are going to be deprived of their right to work.

The NDP tells us that this replacement worker ban is going to reduce picket line violence. However, it may actually increase violence because of the right to refuse to do struck work. Strikers' anger is going to intensify since they know that the employees working during a strike or lockout could have said no.

Again, I'd like to refer to the Quebec impact of this reform -- because the government is so fond of quoting Quebec -- and remind us again that Quebec has had more strikes or lockouts than Ontario in 12 of the 14 years since Quebec's anti-scab law was implemented in 1978. And let's remember: Quebec has fewer people and a smaller economy. Ontario has had fewer strikes due to a balance between the employee's right to go on strike and the employer's right to continue operation during a strike. The number of days lost to strikes in Quebec is much larger.

Based on Quebec's experience with the replacement worker ban, it is anticipated, if Bill 40 is introduced in this province, that the number of days lost due to strike or lockout in this province is going to increase. Is that what we want, a loss of productivity?

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Mr Speaker, I don't believe a quorum is present.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): A quorum is now present.

Mrs Witmer: I'd like to turn now to the changes in the certification process. Bill 40 is going to eliminate the post-application petitions. Membership support will be determined strictly at the date of application based on membership cards that are submitted by the union. No other Canadian jurisdiction prohibits the admission of petitions as evidence that an employee has changed his or her mind about his or her support for a trade union.

The bill is going to reduce the level of support required to trigger a representation vote from 45% to 40%. The bill will also eliminate the requirement to collect a $1 union membership fee. Now, once you sign a union card, bingo, you will be in a union. There will be no secret ballot, no cooling-off period.

As well, and this is something that needs to be given serious consideration, under

section 8 of the act the board now has discretion to grant automatic certification to a union where the employer has contravened the act, if the illegal acts are serious enough that the true wishes of the employees are not likely to be ascertained and if the union satisfies the board that it has adequate support for collective bargaining.

Bill 40 is going to eliminate the adequate membership support provision. The Ontario Labour Relations Board will have the power to certify a union in order to remedy an unfair labour practice where the employer's conduct is such that the true wishes of the employees cannot be ascertained. The unfair labour practice

section will apply to individuals acting on the employer's behalf. No other Canadian jurisdiction has this provision.

What are the consequences of the changes in the certification process? Combined, these changes will shift the certification process from an emphasis on determining what the true wishes of the employees are to an emphasis on facilitating union certification.

At the present time in this province, consumers are protected from high-pressure, door-to-door salesmen by a three-day waiting period, yet an employee who signs a union card will not have that same option of a three-day cooling-off period or a sober second thought. If this law is passed as intended, Ontario citizens will have more freedom and rights in buying a vacuum cleaner than an employee deciding whether he or she wants to belong to a union. Oft-times employees are not even aware of a union organizing drive until after the union has made an application to the board for certification.

The elimination now of post-application petitions will prevent these employees from having any voice on the issue of certification. This is enhancing employee participation? I would say not. This proposal virtually eliminates the opportunity for any constructive debate about union membership among the employee group, and the $1 union card fee that was used before, now eliminated, was designed to get employees thinking about the implications of their decision to join a union. It's important that employees make an informed choice. It's even more important now because the elimination is going to take the place of the petition.

Another consequence of the changes in the certification process occurs if an employer or a representative of the employer commits an unfair labour practice by mistake or out of ignorance of the provisions of the act; the union will be automatically certified. The board, which must facilitate collective bargaining as the new purpose clause sets out, will not even have to determine if the union has adequate membership support. This is going to be particularly onerous on small businesses as they do not have in-house legal expertise to assist them in avoiding an unintentional, unfair labour practice.

The elimination of the membership support requirements makes it more likely that employees will be forced to join unions even if a majority are not in favour. This new certification process makes unionization easier and removes the right to change your mind after you've signed the union card.

The changes in the certification process, as you can see, are going to alter the current balance in legislation, which presently also protects the employee's right to remain or become non-union. Therefore, it is undermining his or her freedom of choice. These changes fail to recognize today's workplace realities, including the desire of employees for greater participation in decision-making and a commitment to quality customer service.

Why are all employees not being given an opportunity to participate in the decision-making of joining a union? These changes in the certification process give unions new rights without any accompanying responsibility. It leaves their duties, their role, their responsibilities totally unquestioned and untouched. Although an employee's right to join a union is a fundamental workplace right, equally important is the principle to make that decision freely and with complete and full information.

The decision to join a union is not a decision for the employer or the union; it is the employee's choice. Employees are entitled to know the significance of signing a union card. They are entitled to know whether they can change their minds. They are entitled to know what it means to be a member of a union and what they can expect from collective bargaining. Unfortunately the Bill 40 amendments to the certification procedure will severely limit the opportunity for information, reflection and a change of mind.

At a time when critical decisions are being made, the union organizer will be the only source of information. The most certain way to ensure fairness in this process is a secret ballot vote, the basic democratic decision-making procedure. Those who oppose a vote in a certification procedure argue that it's open to employer coercion. However, union organizing tactics that take place in secrecy hold the same prospect for abuse.

The challenge that we in this Legislature need to adopt is to develop an open procedure that lets employees exercise their basic democratic rights without improper interference by either party, employer or union. Presently, Bill 40 fails the test of fairness and balance. Therefore, in order to achieve some balance and fairness, I introduced a private member's bill to allow for secret ballot votes for certification, ratification of contracts and the decision to go on strike.

I'd like to tell this House again why I introduced that bill. I am concerned about all workers in this province, all 100%. I strongly believe that if we are to have the fairness and equality the Minister of Labour has indicated he desires, all workers in this province should have the right to a free and democratic vote. Workers should have the right to decide for themselves, free of any interference or intimidation from any source, whether to have a union represent them, to accept a contract or to go on strike. Obviously a secret ballot vote is the only fair way of allowing workers to do so.

It's interesting. When I asked the minister last month about the possibility of a secret ballot vote, he responded by saying that no one had approached him to request a secret ballot vote. I pointed out to him at that time that throughout the public consultation process that he talks about he received a large number of submissions from groups and individuals that called for a secret ballot vote.

At this time I'd like to read some of the comments from individuals who have asked for a secret ballot vote.

I'd like to quote first from an employee in Guelph. He writes to the Premier, "Your government still has an opportunity to make the OLRA a truly enlightened piece of legislation, legislation that advances the interests of working people, legislation that will make the workplace more open, responsive and democratic." He goes on to say, "Until the right of a worker to join a union is absolutely uninterfered with, we will not have a democracy."

He goes on:

"I have been manipulated by unions and businesses alike during 20 working years. I never believed I had all the facts on the rare occasions I was allowed to cast a vote. If you truly want meaningful dialogue and workers to exert control over their own destinies, give them the right to a secret ballot vote whenever possible. By making this a mandatory provision, you will force businesses and unions alike to ensure that the workers receive all of the information necessary to make an informed decision. This provision will advance the interests of working people to make the workplace more open, responsive and democratic, and it will eliminate threats to these worthy goals.

"I am concerned, however