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

July 15, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Among the chorus of concerns over the NDP-proposed changes to the labour legislation, included is the voice of the province's second-largest industry, agriculture and food. I think it is fair to say there's widespread agreement that agriculture should be covered by special legislation. Clearly this seasonal and time-conscious industry deserves special consideration.

While a final report of the Task Force on Agricultural Labour Relations was submitted to the government almost three weeks ago, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Agriculture and Food fail to respond to this aspect of their labour relations overhaul.

The Minister of Labour has stated, "We will take a very serious look at the [agriculture] task force report," which would therefore indicate the ministry's commitment to giving agriculture the special consideration it deserves. But from the other side of his mouth, the Minister of Labour has said, "It would be very difficult to pull out certain groups and exempt them from the provisions of the legislation."

The NDP government is offering farmers doubletalk at best. More often, the NDP is not saying anything at all about the impact its proposed labour legislation will have on agriculture.

Ontario's rural community already finds itself ailing and stressed. Farmers deserve to know where the legislation is heading and how it will affect them. I fear that with the curtailment of debate on this bill, it is unlikely that either minister will ever be offering any information to farmers.

ACCESS TO TRADES AND PROFESSIONS

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I would like to draw the government's attention to the serious problem of a lack of access to trades and professions faced by people who have been educated and trained outside this province.

I have recently met with the representatives of an organization from my community called Skilled Employment Entry and Development. These dedicated individuals are committed to the goal of increased and more equitable access to employment for those educated and trained outside Ontario. The two most significant barriers confronting these people are the lack of consistent recognition of foreign qualifications and the demands by employers for perspective job applicants to have related work experience in Canada.

The government of Ontario has been extremely slow to take action to promote the recognition of foreign-trained professionals and to help facilitate their entry into the Ontario workforce. Much more needs to be done by this government to work cooperatively with organizations such as Skilled Employment Entry and Development to develop innovative approaches to this problem.

I would like to encourage the government to work with professional and trade associations in Ontario to remove these barriers to employment and to review their existing entry requirements to allow the qualifications of foreign trade professionals without decreasing their standards. I would like to urge the government to take immediate action to address this problem.

REFUGEES

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): For the last couple of months on Sunday evenings, with Father Conrad Daichuk, I've been meeting at St Michael's Ukrainian Catholic Church in Welland with Hispanic and Ukrainian refugees who have fled their countries because of the fear of death and violence and the persistent persecution they've been victims of.

One of those people is here in this House with us today, José Munoz. José Munoz is exceptional because he fled Argentina with his wife and two Argentinian-born children some three years ago to escape persecution by the military there, sought refugee status here and now has two children born in this country and this province, citizens of this country. But a federal government that doesn't give a tinker's dam about the welfare of José Munoz or thousands of other South American and Central American refugees is sending this man back on August 7 to what will be, I tell you, inevitable persecution and possible death.

The federal government and the minister, who could care less about the welfare of these people, is victimizing Munoz, his wife and his four children, two of them Canadian citizens, in a way that only parallels the brutality of an oppressive regime, the military of which persecuted this man. He was the victim of a refugee adjudication process which denied him the right to counsel and persisted in refusing him the right to an adjournment so that he could obtain counsel. It is a refugee and immigration system about which none of us can be proud and which is an international embarrassment.

I call upon others in this House to join me in protesting this most vehemently and in helping to protect the lives of José Munoz and others like him.

CHEQUE CASHING BILL

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): The Minister of Community and Social Services wrote to me last June. She was concerned because in her view Bill 154 did not ensure that government cheques would be cashed. I have said many times that the prohibition of fees is a first step. I have encouraged this minister to implement measures which would facilitate cheque cashing for low-income Ontarians.

I find it very unusual that the minister would worry about a situation over which she has full control. She has the responsibility of distributing social assistance in this province. She must make certain that people receive the full amount to which they are entitled. This mandate is entirely within her ministry's jurisdiction. She could even enlist the support of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations in order to better protect the interests of low-income Ontarians.

The problem is not one of means. The real problem is the lack of will to act upon an urgent issue. Many solutions have been brought forward but the answer is always, "Let's wait and see." How much longer must recipients of social assistance wait? How much longer must they be deprived of the full amount of their benefits?

If this minister truly shares my concern for the low-income residents of Ontario, as she claims, then she cannot sit idly by while the people who depend upon her ministry's services are exploited.

HYDRO RATES

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): The people of Willowdale will be faced with a 9.1% increase in their Hydro rates in 1993. This escalation follows annual increases of 8.7% and 11.8%.

To quote a recent letter to the Minister of Energy from North York Hydro, "Under present economic conditions, with inflation running at 1% to 2% and many of our customers being asked for wage concessions, increases of this order of magnitude are unacceptable."

Exorbitant Hydro rates not only affect the individual household, but they increase the cost of doing business in Ontario while decreasing our competitive advantage. Industry will not invest with confidence if it cannot depend on a reliable supply of power at reasonable rates.

In 1992, the average Ontario family of four will spend about 45% of its income to pay its taxes. A recent study says that the tax burden for the average Ontario family will increase by $350 as a consequence of measures introduced in this provincial government's 1992 budget. This will be the largest package of provincial tax increases in Ontario since Confederation.

This government, like all other governments, must come to the realization that there is only one taxpayer. That one taxpayer cannot afford to pay any more taxes. On behalf of the people of Willowdale, I urge the government to cut taxes and ease the burden being placed on the hardworking taxpayers of Willowdale.

BRITISH PENSIONS

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Tomorrow, I will have the opportunity to bring before this Legislature a resolution that will attempt to bring pressure upon the government of the United Kingdom to come to grips with perhaps the greatest inequity of all time: pensions for which full payments have been made, yet which have not been paid.

British old-age pensioners are fed up to the teeth with making annual pilgrimages to the United Kingdom to tell British politicians how unhappy they are with this current pension situation. But perhaps even less digestible than the cruelty that such a position expresses is that a country which has always prided itself on its common sense and embraced the practice of logical and rational behaviour could allow this utterly irrational and preposterous discrimination.

Only yesterday a woman called my office to tell me how her mother had come to visit her from England and while here suffered a stroke. She could never return home to live alone, but through this found her pension frozen and her supplement cut off, thereby placing a tremendous financial burden upon the whole family.

Inflation increased 270% in Canada between 1976 and 1991. From that it's easy to see the devastating effect that the freezing of British pensions paid to Canadians is having upon the British old-age pensioners living in Ontario.

I urge all British old-age pensioners living close to Queen's Park to come down tomorrow at 10 am to listen to the debate on an issue that affects their quality of life.

LANDFILL

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Last night, well over 500 citizens of King township and the city of Vaughan attended a rally against the proposed garbage dump for York region and against Bill 143. At the meeting, both residents and municipal officials made it clear they would move heaven and earth to prevent their communities from playing host to Metro's garbage.

A few weeks ago, the Richmond Hill Liberal and the Vaughan Liberal published a strongly worded editorial condemning Bill 143 and the arbitrary decision of the Minister of the Environment to force Metro Toronto's garbage on to the community of York region. The paper also encouraged its readers to complete coupons expressing their dissatisfaction with Bill 143. Hundreds and hundreds of readers responded.

I have today with me over 800 of their coupons, along with a number of letters from residents of York region. They are angered by the minister's arbitrary and unilateral decision to impose a dump on their homes. I am presenting these to the minister today, hoping that she will, at a minimum, respond personally and directly to the petitioners.

The garbage crisis in the greater Toronto area has been created by the Minister of the Environment. She and the Premier bear full responsibility for the state of anger and panic that has gripped the people of our region. She must act now to present a new proposal for new solutions for the disposal of garbage in the greater Toronto area.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement concerns this government's failure to realize that it is fundamental to the true democratic process that each individual member, either on the government side or in the opposition benches, has a meaningful opportunity to participate in the legislative process of this Legislature and to truly reflect the wishes and views of our constituents.

Two recent examples involve the member for Carleton East's private member's Bill 154, the Government Cheque Cashing Act, and my private member's Bill 17, the Motor Boat Operators' Licensing Act. Bill 154 would have saved money; Bill 17 would have saved lives.

It is a sad state of affairs that we have become so accustomed to the silent demise of private members' bills that the people of Ontario just assume it is going to happen. Government members can make all the proper noises of support for a particular private member's bill, but it is a known fact that the current procedure for these bills contains an implicit veto of the government House leader. This veto need not be explained or justified to elected representatives or to their constituents.

Bill 154 was ordered for third reading last April and Bill 17 received second reading last Thursday and was referred to the committee of the whole House. These two bills are now dead, because this government will simply fail to act on them.

Rather than fiddling with Ontario's labour laws and standing orders, this government should concentrate instead on reforming the legislative process to enable all elected members to have a meaningful opportunity to participate in the policy decisions of this Legislature.

LANDFILL

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): On June 4 the Interim Waste Authority released a list of 19 candidate landfill sites in York region. Nine of the sites are located within my riding. I have spoken to many of the people in my riding and I know the pain, anger and mixed emotions they are feeling. Eventually one of the sites in York will be chosen by the IWA.

It has been the cause of much anguish for me to see members of this House continue to present selected facts focused on only parts of Bill 143, and that continues to upset the community I represent. I want you to know I will do everything in my power to help the people affected by the IWA's landfill search within my riding. I have attended many large meetings and will continue to meet the newly formed residents' committee. I have addressed large rallies outside this House. I have attended a talk show which allowed my constituents to call in and ask questions. I have walked half of the sites and will walk the remainder with local groups and residents.

Yesterday I was able to chair a meeting with representatives from the umbrella group Environment Not Economics which was formed after the June 4 announcement by the IWA. That meeting showed me that an open dialogue can still happen. I want to thank all those present, including Minister Grier, for allowing that group to present its brief.

This government is committed to making sure the process of site selection is as open and fair as possible. We will never return to the days of previous governments where a few politicians selected a site behind closed doors without consultation or participation of the public. That's why the IWA was formed. But that doesn't mean we are turning our backs on the people whom we were elected to represent.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO PLACE

Hon Peter North (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): I am pleased to inform the House that Ontario Place has entered into a partnership with MCA Concerts Canada to revitalize the Forum at Ontario Place.

MCA Concerts Canada, a company owned in part by Molson Breweries, will invest approximately $12 million to replace the current Forum facilities with an 18,000-seat seasonal concert venue and administrative facilities.

I would like to point out that while there is no public money involved in the agreement, this $12-million private sector investment furthers public sector goals. It helps to ensure that Ontario Place remains financially viable. It will also generate public sector revenues to help ensure Ontario Place remains accessible to everyone.

In addition, the construction phase, which begins this fall, will create 105 person-years of employment. The new facility will open in June 1993. MCA Concerts Canada will manage and operate the new facility under a revenue-sharing agreement with Ontario Place.

I have brought this information to the attention of the House for several reasons.

First, tens of thousands of Ontario residents and visitors who attend concerts at the Forum every year can look forward to enjoying events next season in a state-of-the-art facility with more comfortable seating.

Second, the new agreement strengthens an ongoing partnership between two public and private sector organizations. Molson Breweries, a part owner of MCA Concerts Canada, has long been a corporate sponsor at Ontario Place. The revitalization of the Forum is a good example of the mutually beneficial, private-public sector partnerships this government believes are an important component of Ontario's economic renewal.

Finally, I am very pleased that the major capital investment will achieve two objectives: It will create good-paying jobs, starting within three to four months, and it will also enhance Ontario Place's contribution to the revitalization of Toronto's waterfront.

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

Hon Allan Pilkey (Minister of Correctional Services): On Tuesday the member for Leeds-Grenville raised some very serious issues regarding the operation of the Ministry of Correctional Services' Bell Cairn Staff Development Centre.

As a member of this government and as an employer, I recognize that the issue of gender equality and the right to be free from sexual discrimination, harassment and assault must be assured to all members of staff in this government. Sexual harassment or sexual assault will not be tolerated.

The issues raised are very disturbing to me. I take any allegations of sexual assault very seriously. Accordingly, I have two announcements to make today. First, I have ordered a police investigation into the allegations at the Bell Cairn centre. Second, I have assured those touched by these allegations that their right to privacy will be protected as the investigation proceeds.

This government and this minister will not tolerate sexual assault, abuse or discrimination in any form.

RESPONSES

ONTARIO PLACE

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): I stand to reply to the statement made by the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. I would like to say, first of all, that I am a very strong supporter of Ontario Place. Anything we can do at Ontario Place to attract additional tourists to the province and to provide pleasure for residents of Ontario, I support. I think this combination with a private company is a good one, and we should look forward to having other such contracts made.

I would like to say, though, to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation that I'd like to feel the contract that has been entered into with this particular private company can be reviewed, if necessary, to make sure it is a good contract, that not only Ontario Place but the Ontario government is coming out of the contract with what it should have.

Now comes the other part. I'd like to say to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, the Premier and other members of his cabinet and his party that the tourism industry in the province is having a lot of problems. We have hotels that are empty. We have restaurants that are empty. We have attractions that are empty. It behooves this government and this cabinet to do more to assist the tourism industry in Ontario.

We're faced with high gasoline prices, high taxes and many other things that are deterring tourists from coming to Ontario. You know that, Minister. You know what our numbers are going to be this year. You also know that because of the economic situation we have in Ontario, unless you, the cabinet and the Premier do something to help the tourism industry in this province to keep existing, we are going to lose a lot of these people.

I am pleased with this particular announcement, but I say to you again, Minister, you should be pressing the Premier and other members of the cabinet and members of your party to do more for the tourism industry in Ontario. They don't seem to see the importance of it. We used to have a fight within our cabinet during certain times too, but I tell you this: When you look at the number of jobs that are created by the tourism industry, this is one place where you could put this province back on the map.

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I'd like to respond to the very serious allegations that are made and the minister's response. I would have expected more than one page, Minister. Are the women of this province safe in terms of being in the civil service? You've told us that sexual harassment or sexual assault would not be tolerated. It was tolerated apparently for several months, if the allegations are true, and you didn't know about it.

I'd like to know, Minister: Are these people in fact going to be safe? Are you going to keep your ear to the wheel? Are you going to know what your deputy minister knows? Or does it take a social worker to eventually tell you that the women of correctional facilities and other facilities are being molested?

If these allegations are correct -- we don't want another Grandview -- I suggest that you decide right now and that you suggest to your cabinet colleagues that perhaps whistle-blowing legislation should be introduced immediately. Why should these women have to worry about peer group pressures? If this had happened on the street, there would have been sexual assault charges laid.

You're now having the police investigate a track that's probably cold. I want to know how wide the investigation is going to be. Is it just going to be of the complainants or the people who are complained about, or is it going to be broader than that? I suggest that Grandview should have taught us something. It should have taught us that we have to make certain that our institutions are safe for those who are being guarded as well as those who are the guards.

I suggest to you that it doesn't ring very fair or true for you to come out with a one-page statement saying that you're going to have the police investigate. That's hardly being a guardian of the women of this province. I suggest to you that you failed in your role. Perhaps the Premier should look at the question of splitting those two portfolios. You obviously can't look after both of them. I'm not sure you can look after either one of them, quite frankly.

You say you're going to keep the privacy of these people protected. It's blown already. These people are already the subject of wide press and they'll be the subject of wide press tomorrow. Why could these people not have had a sensitive place they could go to and in privacy related these facts?

When this happened recently in the United States, those officers were immediately put on temporary leave. Have you done that? Have you considered doing that? Have you done anything other than prepare a one-page statement for this House? I suggest to you that it's unacceptable. It should be unacceptable to the women of Ontario and to every woman in your caucus, and I'm surprised you haven't been skewered.

Quite frankly, this is unacceptable to all of us. If it had happened on the street, as I say, it would have been dealt with in a much more serious fashion and a much more swift fashion instead of letting it float around for several months and having to have a social worker eventually have it tipped off through one of the plain brown envelopes. We perhaps could have been investigated for that.

ONTARIO PLACE

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm pleased to respond on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party to the statement by the Minister of Tourism and Recreation today with respect to Ontario Place and MCA Concerts Canada and its willingness to invest $12 million with this government.

I think the company itself deserves some measure of commendation for coming forward with this. I don't imagine it was the minister's idea. I wonder what other private sector consortium might have been put together with respect to this issue to put this forward.

This is apparently good news. It is the private sector coming forward to revitalize Ontario Place, although the details are rather sketchy, Minister. There's no question that we don't have all the information here today, primarily the details of the revenue-sharing agreement, which I would be most interested in receiving. I would expect you'll be willing to table that with me in the near future. I think more information is needed on the contract and, as I said, other companies that may have wanted to be involved in this revitalization of Ontario Place.

With the considerable interest that has been shown by the private sector in Ontario Place, I hope the minister is prepared to look forward beyond that into greater private sector involvement in Ontario Place.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I too would like to comment on this announcement by the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. It's another statement where the media have it first. In this case, the Toronto Star has this story and we're hearing it after the fact in the House.

I am particularly interested, I suppose, that one minister is able to come up with $12 million from somewhere for something in this province when we have another minister, namely, the minister responsible for the Art Gallery of Ontario, who only needed $2.5 million and couldn't come up with it from anywhere. Here we are with this private sector investment for a seasonal facility versus the Art Gallery of Ontario, which is open all year round, which is full to the doors with gifts from the Ontario people for the Ontario people to see, and nobody can see it because it's closed for six months.

It's a very interesting comparison. I simply point that out to this socialist government, which has yet to learn the value of the Art Gallery of Ontario.

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I'm responding to the statement by the Minister of Correctional Services with respect to the Bell Cairn training centre. Regrettably, this whole matter would never have come to light had it not been for the courageous action of a civil servant who contacted me; someone in the Ministry of Correctional Services who knew right from wrong, someone who was distraught about the efforts of ministry officials to sweep this under the rug.

There are at least two serious omissions with respect to the statement today: one is that there is no reference to the communications breakdown within the ministry; also, there is no reference to an investigation into how this matter was handled, or rather mishandled, by senior officials in the ministry.

To say the treatment of these women was shameful is not strong enough. Instead of being treated with understanding, with compassion, with dignity and respect, they were treated like dirt. On this side of the House we understand the tremendous trauma the women would have experienced. I would encourage these Correctional Services ministry employees to come forward, either publicly or privately, to assist with this investigation. I can assure them that this Legislature will treat them with the dignity and respect they deserve, a dignity and respect that was not provided them by the Ministry of Correctional Services.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and it's about the state of the economy. The Treasurer in his budget indicated that the economy would begin to pick up now in the spring. You yourself, Minister, as you answer the questions in the House, assure us that things are just fine, investment's pouring in, business is confident about Bob Rae and the Ontario government. Yesterday you actually went into a little bit of a rant when the opposition dared to raise some questions about the economy. You said the Premier's telling you to just take it easy. You said the only problem is that the opposition doesn't have its facts.

Yesterday your own government released some additional facts I want to go over with you. They are to do with plant closures. In spite of the fact that you say things are fine and the Treasurer says the economy is picking up, in this report issued yesterday, this extremely important report, a report on permanent and indefinite layoffs in Ontario, we see 16 complete closures in the month of June. Last year, you will know there were 12 complete closures, fully a third more closures this year than last year. In the first six months of this year we see 74 complete closures; 58 last year. Throughout this report, three pages of complete closures: a tremendous indictment of the government.

As we ask you questions in the House, you say the only problem is that the opposition does not have the facts. You say everything is fine. I want a very simple answer to this question: If things are so fine out there, how is it that we are seeing record numbers of plant closures and record numbers of people being laid off due to plant closures?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology): I don't think this government or I have ever said everything is fine. We took over a government at the bottom of a recession. We've worked hard at fighting that recession with the various economic policies introduced by the Treasurer.

What I did say was that at a time when we are experiencing a recession in North America, this jurisdiction is outperforming every other jurisdiction. One only has to look at the latest employment figures. There were more jobs created in the last two months in this province than in all the other provinces combined. One need only look at the employment figures in the United States; in fact, New York state and New Jersey have experienced a greater increase in unemployment than Ontario. Indeed, if you look at closures in the northern United States, you'll find a greater number of closures in the state of Michigan and other states than in Ontario on a per capita basis.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Philip: Yes, it seems reasonable to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges. I know the member for St Catharines doesn't like to do that.

Mr Phillips: Listen. You've got to get on and do something. The facts of the matter are that in the month of July, the month we're in right now -- and this is when we're supposed to be pulling out of this recession; you with all your wonderful programs are supposed to get the economy going -- we see already 18 more plants closing, already announced. Last July we saw 10 plants closing. Things are not getting better; things are getting worse.

You say, "We created jobs." Well, 50,000 people entered the workforce and 25,000 jobs were created. We're not even keeping up with the number of people entering the workforce. The thing that makes me so angry is your complacency. You're saying that things are fine. Things are not fine. We are seeing record numbers of closings. They're not slowing down; they're going up. We're seeing the unemployment rate not going down as the Treasurer promised, but going up. We see more people entering the workforce than you are creating jobs.

I want to ask again, how can you tell the people of Ontario that things are getting better when the facts -- and these are the facts that you wanted to see -- prove you wrong.

Hon Mr Philip: The member asks what we are doing. I outlined yesterday just a few of the new companies that are opening or expanding in Ontario, companies that any province would love to have but is not attracting. In fact, we are attracting more investment to Ontario than all of the other provinces combined, and that has been true throughout the history of this government.

Let me just give you an example of what we are doing. This morning, I did a ground-breaking for Husky, which is setting up an international research centre. The president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce was there and was very complimentary about what this government is doing with that project.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, member for Etobicoke West.

Hon Mr Philip: Not only will it create a couple of hundred new jobs, but it will advance research and development in the plastics industry so that we can be competitive. If you want to know what this government is doing, you talk to the president of Husky or a few of the other companies we've been working with, things you never dreamed of doing to create a more competitive environment for Ontario.

Mr Phillips: I never dreamed of seeing six pages of plant closures in one year in Ontario. That's what I never dreamed of seeing. Honest to goodness, if you would just get your head out of the sand and stop your talking and do action.

In a speech four months ago you promised the Legislature we would see legislation on the training program introduced in the spring, your much-vaunted training. There is no legislation on the training program. You promised the Ontario investment fund; we are literally a minimum of six months away from that. We don't even see any legislation. You're out for consulting on it. You promised that. You promised in a speech four months ago your vaunted industrial strategy. We have not seen the industrial strategy from you. You promised that worker ownership would get the unions involved in the program.

The Ontario Federation of Labour has told you to shove it. The Canadian Auto Workers have told you that they're not going to participate in it. So have the Steelworkers.

Where is your program? You promised those four things. Will you give me the dates at which you will bring those in?

Hon Mr Philip: The statement the member made is simply not factual, and he knows it. We are consulting on the investment fund, we are meeting with considerable support out there and we are setting up a fund that is based on consultation. As I go around the province and talk to the presidents of trust companies, to trade unions, they wonder why it is that the United States could do it but the Liberal government couldn't do it in five years of power. We're doing it.

In this budget, with the kinds of programs that my ministry has been implementing to help industry restructure, it's up 96% over the last year of the Liberals. You had the money and you didn't do it to develop the industrial structure. We're out there doing it.

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): I have a question for the Minister of Correctional Services. We're all, of course, delighted that at last a police investigation has been ordered as a result of disclosures made in this House yesterday, but the obvious concern, as the honourable member for Leeds-Grenville has indicated, is that if a senior member of the bureaucracy had not communicated with him personally, this matter would not have come to light in the House and presumably no police investigation would now be under way. That's a very serious allegation against the administration of the department.

I want to ask a question about the administration of your department. In the Toronto Star today, in an

article by Paula Todd headed "Gang Rape Alleged At Jail Guards School," a spokesperson for your ministry, I take it of some seniority, confirmed that senior officials had known about this incident for some time. I think the public are entitled, if they are concerned, as we are, about the administration of your second ministry, to know the answer to two very simple questions, which, after a day, you will be able to answer if you are going to be candid with this House. First, what was the date on which senior officials first heard about this incident? Second, what was the date that you first heard about this incident?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Minister of Correctional Services): As to the second question, if I might take them in reverse order, the date I heard of the incident was yesterday.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Pilkey: As to the initial question by the honourable member opposite, I want to tell him -- in an uninterrupted way, if I might, to his own caucus colleague -- that this is a matter, as I indicated at that time and again today, that is of very serious concern to me. It is a matter which I am going to see receives my fullest attention and the fullest attention of this government.

That view and that concern is also shared by the Premier of this government. He in fact has requested the secretary of cabinet to prepare a full and detailed report with respect to this entire situation. I believe that, coupled with the police investigation I have launched, will resolve this matter and speak rather directly and deliberately to any potential future occurrences.

Mr Scott: That's simply not responsive to the public administration concern that is presented here.

I'm glad a police investigation is under way. That's appropriate; I don't want to interfere with that in any way.

I hear that the minister was informed of this yesterday, and I take it he was informed in the House for the first time, that that's what his answer means. I accept it when he says that to me. What I want to know is what's going on in the department. A senior official of your ministry has said they had heard about this incident some time ago. They're obviously not telling you what you need to know.

What we're entitled to know is, when did senior officials, one or more, of your ministry first hear about this incident? The reason we want to know that is so we can gauge the length of time it took before they told you, because I don't think they told you until you heard about it here. What's going on there? When did they first hear about this incident?

Hon Mr Pilkey: That information will come, as I indicated, in a detailed report that will be prepared by the secretary to cabinet for the Premier. I think what is more important than that particular piece of information at this point in time is that the matter has been acted upon, that it has in fact been treated as an absolutely serious matter by this government and is getting that kind of direct and immediate attention.

Mr Scott: We understand that the allegation is serious and we are grateful that at last it will be investigated. I, for my part, am prepared to accept the proposition that you never even heard about this incident until you came to question period yesterday. That's not what we're concerned about in examining the public administration of the province of Ontario. What we're concerned about is the statement made by your officials -- do you work for them or do they work for you? -- who said, "We've known about this incident for some time." Have you found out how long they knew?

That's not a matter of the police investigation. That's a matter of going to them and saying, as I did many times, "When did you hear about this and why didn't you tell me?"

I want to know, when did they first hear about this, and if they heard some time ago, what have you done to bring them up to the mark? You're the minister. You're the government. These women who are told that if they don't make complaints they won't have them acted on have the right to know the answer to those questions. When did your senior officials first hear about this incident?

Hon Mr Pilkey: As I've indicated, and I apologize for the repetitiveness but the member forces me to repeat it, the appropriate and immediate and direct actions have been taken. If the member opposite is looking for some kind of admission that the minister was not advised directly, he has that. What he also has --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: With the cooperation of the member for Oriole, perhaps the minister will be allowed to respond.

Hon Mr Pilkey: Wherever I was interrupted in giving what I hope was a very responsive answer.

The issue which was raised yesterday is of absolute concern to me. I indicated that then; I'm saying it now. Actions I have taken are rather deliberate, they are direct and they are immediate. That is a circumstance that is not acceptable to me, and it will be redressed.

The Speaker: New question, third party.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question along much the same lines as the member for St George-St David. Since I raised the issue yesterday of the alleged sexual assault at the ministry's training school in Hamilton, at least two things have been established: (1) ministry officials knew about problems at the school and are reviewing security and hiring a night manager, and (2) these same officials knew from a credible source about the grave allegations of sexual assault by ministry employees on ministry property and did nothing about it. They engaged in what amounts to an unforgivable passive coverup.

The minister has had 24 hours to review this matter. Can he today indicate who in his ministry made the decision to do nothing, and can he also indicate what he has done to assure the people of this province, especially the women of this province, that this sort of thing will never, ever happen again?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I am very pleased to tell the member that a full and complete and detailed report is being put together. It has been requested of the secretary of cabinet, who has responsibility for deputy ministers. We have, in addition to that, commenced a police investigation.

I have said publicly and I have reiterated now many times that this is an unacceptable circumstance and that women in this province or in the Ontario public service whom we are directly responsible for should not be in any kind of circumstance where they feel any peer pressure or any difficulty in coming forward with respect to any incident in which they feel they have been violated or where there was any inappropriate activity. That is being done, and it is being done now.

Mr Runciman: It's extremely disturbing to say the least that this minister would not be aware of such a serious allegation circulating in his ministry for some time. A credible source, a social worker in the ministry, brought this forward. I can think of no more serious charge than a gang rape by ministry staff on ministry property, yet this minister has admitted absolute ignorance of this situation. It was apparently kept in the dark. Can the minister tell us how in the world such a thing could happen? Why was he kept in the dark?

Hon Mr Pilkey: My discomfort and concern of not being advised of this particular situation will come as no surprise to anyone in this House. I can advise, however, of the immediate actions I have taken since. I think it is also very important that we not give out details in dribs and drabs which we have not had time to fully amass. When they are put together, and that is being done at this point under the direction of the Premier and the secretary of cabinet, we then will be in a position to give a chronological description of events and details.

The Speaker: Final supplementary?

Mr Runciman: I could ask a number of questions in respect to this but I think it's important at this stage that the minister give us a more forthcoming response than he's giving this afternoon. He's simply furthering the coverup of this matter in my view and, I think, the view of all of us on this side of the House.

I'm going to ask him a very specific question which he should be able to respond to in a like manner. He's had 24 hours --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I would ask the member for St George-St David to come to order and allow his colleague the member for Leeds-Grenville to place his question.

Mr Runciman: I believe the minister should be responding directly and indicating to the public of this province if indeed the deputy minister knew about this matter. He should be responding to various widespread concerns about the way this matter was handled internally, the attempt to hide this matter under the carpet, to keep employees who may have participated in a sexual assault on the job as peace officers.

In the minister's statement he said, "I recognize...the right to be free from sexual discrimination, harassment and assault." Mr Minister, don't you believe in conforming with what you've just said earlier in the House? The public has the right to know what happened in this matter internally within your ministry and, more important, the women of this province and especially the alleged victims in this case.

Hon Mr Pilkey: As I had indicated, the details and the chronological order of these matters are being amassed even as we speak. The details are of considerable concern to me. I have taken the most immediate steps possible to guarantee and ensure that our workplace is in fact free from sexual harassment and assault.

It may be well and good for certain members of the opposition to try to characterize my role in this particular situation, but I have to tell you that I feel very comfortable in the actions I have taken since this matter came to my attention.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): You must answer the question.

The Speaker: Order, member for Oriole.

SCHOOL BREAKFASTS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a question for the Premier. Since your election I've risen in this House seven times over the past two years to question your government about establishing a nutrition program, a breakfast program for children in this province. The current school year is over; educators are gearing up now for classes in September. The proposal I have continually presented to you does not call for a great bureaucratic decision, it does not call for a multiministry analysis, it does not even call for any taxpayer money. It calls for your cooperation and it calls for your leadership as Premier.

I would ask you today, Premier, two years after I asked you on the first occasion, when can we expect to see a nutrition program in our schools?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'll refer this matter to the minister who's actively in charge of the file, the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): I want to thank the leader of the opposition for the question. This is certainly an issue, as he knows from our response to his motion in this House, that we are equally concerned with. We don't agree with some of his premises. One is that this requires no money; another is that it's simply a matter of taking leadership and so on. There are a number of important questions.

One of the issues that has been raised is the issue of what we might call a Good Samaritan act or a good faith act, such as it applies in many of the jurisdictions in the United States, in terms of surplus food, in terms of the need to look at how to distribute that in a way that's safe. That is certainly something that we are looking at, together with the Minister of Agriculture and Food and the Minister of the Environment, because of course waste food is also food that needs to be disposed of. So that is a real issue for us.

One of the other problems we have is that there is clear opposition in this province from many of the poverty advocacy groups for an extension of institutionalized feeding because the question is how that fits in with social service and social assistance reform. So what we would say to the leader of the opposition is that we are actively looking at this. It does require interministerial cooperation and we are hoping that in the fall we will be able to come forward with a program that meets the multiple needs of the people of Ontario.

Mr Harris: By way of supplementary, I want to tell you I am most distressed that this file is now with the Minister of Community and Social Services, who believes nothing can be done unless you spend millions and millions of dollars.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): That's not what she said.

Mr Harris: That is exactly what she said.

There is no need for interministerial cooperation in this program. To provide simple nutrition in our schools requires the cooperation of the Ministry of Education to allow that to happen, the cooperation of the various affiliates of teachers' associations, which would be well forthcoming, and the leadership of the Premier, who, I can assure you from my discussions with teachers, from my discussions with the private sector, would be more than enough to bring forward the kinds of programs that have worked in other jurisdictions, the kinds of programs that are working in some schools now, but not very many.

I would ask you, Minister, when I present you with an alternative that costs not one cent, that does not institutionalize anything, that simply provides nutrition for those who need it, whenever they need it during the school day in the classroom for no cost to the taxpayers, why is it you give me the bureaucratic answer and say we've got to have a multidisciplinary, interministerial committee? Why will you not talk to the Premier, tell him to take the leadership and it can start in September?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The Premier has taken great leadership in this area and that's why he's assigned it to those of us who have responsibility for the various areas. The Ministry of Education clearly has to be involved. Our ministry has to be involved because what we are talking about is feeding children.

The leader of the opposition is just amazing. He tells us, the parents, the people of Ontario that it costs nothing to feed children. That's nonsense. What we have to do is find a way to concentrate our resources in such a way that all children have an option, and we are not taking the responsibility away from parents, that we are in fact, as a community, taking responsibility together. That takes a lot of coordination. I don't have a magic wand, and frankly, if the leader of the opposition did, his party should have waved it 42 years ago.

Mr Harris: Let me first of all apologize for George Drew for not introducing the program 42 years ago. I'm sorry on behalf of Mr Drew.

Having said that, here we are faced with a situation in 1992 very similar to 1991, very similar to 1990. We have seen the problems of our youth in Toronto and in other large cities all too clearly this past spring and in the summertime. We have seen what happens when hungry children don't get off to a good start in school. We have seen what happens when they begin to fall behind and they become disillusioned.

All I am asking you to do is stop tying up this issue in red tape. It is simple. If you really want to act, instead of making sure you have unionized workers cooking food, or instead of making sure that you institutionalize it all or instead of having this bureaucratic slot with a whole bunch of new civil servants, a budget and a whole whack of money, it requires simply this: leadership. It requires the Premier to say, "This will not happen in Ontario in 1992, and I am asking the educational community, I am asking the business community" --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the leader complete his supplementary, please.

Mr Harris: -- "I am asking those who care about this province and this country to come together with me and put the program in place this September." Will you commit to that?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The Premier has asked us all, in all the ministries that are responsible, to coordinate exactly the kind of response the leader of the opposition is suggesting. No, I can't guarantee it will start in September, although I can say that we certainly hope to be able to begin the process in September. If it is as simple as the leader of the opposition suggests, it simply would've been done a long time ago, certainly during the recession of 1981 when children were starving as well.

We have increased our social assistance rates to allow parents to have more dollars to spend on food for their children. That has been a priority. It has been the priority of the anti-poverty community and that is a part of the whole function that we want to have. We do not want stopgap charitable gestures to children; we want services that serve all children.

ENVIRONMENTAL TAX

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Premier. Just a few moments ago I think you said, "Ask me how I feel about another issue." I want to ask you how you feel about an issue of grave importance to a number of people in the public galleries here today and to people who work in the beer can industry in this province.

In your budget, Premier, you implemented a tax on beer can workers, which clearly is having devastating effects on the canning industry in Ontario. You've tried to disguise this as an environmental tax, and in fact you've perpetrated a fraud on the people of this province that there's some great environmental benefit to taxing beer can workers.

Clearly the facts show that 88% of all beer cans are returned to the beer store, and of the remaining 12%, 50% of them come back through the blue box. So some 94% of beer cans are indeed returned, recycled and reused. Also, the facts would indicate that the gross weight going into the landfill in this province from bottle caps alone equals the weight of aluminum cans from beer cans that are not recycled going into that same landfill.

Premier, you can't kid us that it's an environmental issue. You've apparently stated that it's needed to increase revenues and yet you've cut your own Ministry of the Environment's budget by $61 million.

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

Mr Mahoney: My question is, Premier, what is the real reason that you're expanding the tax on beer cans? We know it's not environment. We know it's not revenue generating for economic purposes for the environment. What is the real reason and what is your answer to Pat Corcoran, the chairman of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union --

The Speaker: Could the member complete his question.

Mr Mahoney: -- to Steve McCullough, the vice-chairman of that same local, to Mark Loveys and Mike Danbrook, the president and vice-president respectively of the Steelworkers Local 7176 in Concord, and to Kathy Dumouchel, who chairs the Levy Action Committee at Ball Packaging --

The Speaker: I ask the member to please quickly conclude his question.

Mr Mahoney: -- and to all the workers who are losing their jobs as a result of this tax on beer can workers? What's your answer to them?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm going to refer the question to the Treasurer, because he'll be meeting with these workers this afternoon.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I hope I won't need to take as long in the answer as the question was.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: I thought the members wanted an answer.

It is truly an environmental levy. It is not a tax. It is --

Mr Mahoney: Nonsense. That's nonsense, Floyd, and you know it.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: When the opposition don't like what they hear, they just try to shout us down and say, "It's all nonsense." Well, I'll try to answer the question if the opposition will allow me to do so.

The levy on beer cans is not a tax; it's an environmental levy. I should tell you, Mr Speaker --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: Mr Speaker, I don't know --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the minister take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Treasurer.

Hon Mr Laughren: For this government, the words "reduce, reuse and recycle" are not simply words. They are environmental priorities and they are a commitment by this government, and there's a reason for that.

I'm surprised to hear the member of the official opposition talk about an environmental levy as though he was opposed to it. I'm very surprised. I certainly understand why the former Minister of the Environment from the Liberal Party didn't ask the question. He would have been embarrassed to admit that he did not place reuse over recycling, because it's more energy conservationist than is recycling. It's as simple as that.

Mr Mahoney: I find this really a sad comment. Anyone who looks at the facts on this issue knows that there cannot be any justification for calling this an environmental tax. Anyone who looks at the facts knows, as I've already stated, that you generate more waste in the landfill sites from bottle caps, for goodness' sake --

Hon Mr Laughren: That's nonsense.

Mr Mahoney: That is true. That is not nonsense. The facts are there. Members of your own caucus who know their political careers are in jeopardy as a result of this action by this government have admitted that this is politically motivated and not environmentally motivated. They've admitted it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Will the member place his supplementary.

Mr Mahoney: They stood out in front of this building today and called on this government to rescind the tax, members of your own caucus. So who are you kidding, Treasurer? It's quite obvious the Premier doesn't know what to do, because he wimps out and passes -- this is not an economic issue to you, the government.

The Speaker: Would the member place his supplementary.

Mr Mahoney: You can slash the environmental ministry, so it can't be economically tied to the environment. It's very clear.

Treasurer, since you've been handed this hot potato to try to deal with it, tell these people in the audience where they're going to work after you decimate their industry. Tell their kids who are with them today how -- never mind food in the schools --

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

Mr Mahoney: Tell them how they're going to put food on their table. Will you rescind this tax --

The Speaker: Will the member please take his seat.

Mr Mahoney: Would you please put a moratorium on this tax --

The Speaker: I ask the member to take his seat. Treasurer.

Hon Mr Laughren: Mr Speaker, grandstanding on this issue doesn't solve the problem. It's beyond my comprehension how the member opposite --

Mr Mahoney: We know that.

Hon Mr Laughren: Personal insults aren't going to help you solve the problem either. It's beyond my comprehension --

Mr Mahoney: What do we need to do to get through to you?

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: You could let me answer the question you've asked, to start with. I don't know how the member opposite can expect me to take his question seriously, quite frankly, when he stands up and in one sentence says, "It's a politically motivated tax," and the next minute says, "It's going to cost your members their seats." What kind of political motivation would that be?

I don't understand why the member opposite is not able to come to grips with the fact that this is an environmental levy based on the three hierarchical principles of environmental conservation, reduce, reuse and recycle. That's why there's an environmental levy put on all non-refillable alcohol containers, not just beer cans.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Mr Speaker, on the same issue: You've only got one R now -- and this question is for the Premier, because you haven't answered the question. You're only talking about reusing and have no considerations of the recycling benefit of aluminum cans.

But I ask the Premier, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment, on this very question, how we now have a 10-cent surcharge on every beer can that is sold, when they sell them in the province of Ontario, adding $2.40 to a case of 24 beer.

What I really want to ask the Premier is the background thinking that went into the development of this environmental tax. The fact of the matter is, aluminum cans are environmentally equivalent to refillable glass bottles from the standpoint of air emissions, water effluents and energy usage. The only significant environmental difference is that aluminum cans generate significantly less solid waste than refillable glass bottles. What analysis has your Ministry of the Environment had to support the fact that it is saying refillable glass bottles are better for the environment than aluminum cans?

Hon Mr Rae: Again, Mr Speaker, I'll refer the question to the Treasurer.

Hon Mr Laughren: The previous member who asked a question referred to the proportion of return of cans versus bottles and he used the number 88%. In fact, there's a 98% return on bottles.

Second, after the environmental levy was imposed, as announced in the budget, we did sit down with virtually everybody concerned, and there has been a series of meetings since that time with both the representatives of the workers in the can factories and in aluminum, with Alcan, and as well, as I say, with the companies involved.

Indeed, this very afternoon there is a very substantial meeting with people from the industry, representatives of the workers, from the environmental group, from the brewery workers, in which we are going to discuss the matter further. So it's not as though we simply imposed the levy and then refused to talk to people. There have been a lot of negotiations go on on this matter and they are continuing.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Obviously the Treasurer can't answer an environmental question, so I'll ask him a job question. I think he may want to check with his colleagues the member for Durham Centre and the member for Durham East, who stood on the steps not more than an hour ago and said that they disagreed with the policies of this government as well. You should speak to those two members.

But since you don't know what is happening environmentally with the reason for this tax, let me ask you a job question. At that rally I sat out there and saw two six-year-old twins who are going to be a position where their father is going to lose his job. Would you be able to tell us today, Mr Treasurer, how many jobs are going to be lost, and what do you say to those people who are going to lose their jobs because of you and your policies?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, no one knows what the job losses will be in this regard. No one knows.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Treasurer.

Hon Mr Laughren: If the opposition will not shout me down yet again, I'll try to answer the question. I assume the member is talking about job loss in a specific plant as opposed to overall in the province of Ontario. I assume that's what he means and that he's not talking about net jobs in the economy; I can only make that assumption.

Second, of course, any job dislocation between one industry and another -- for example, bottling versus cans --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: I'll try once again. Any job loss in that regard would depend on what is known as the elasticity of demand as it shifts from cans to bottles. So it's not as though anybody at this point --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. New question.

REFUGEES

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I have a question to the Minister of Citizenship, prefaced very briefly. I want to tell you about Maria and her mother, Mirian, who fled Argentina two and half years ago after the 31-year-old mother was raped by the police when she was arrested for her political activities and after armed politicos broke into her home and abducted her daughter for three days. She sought refuge in Ontario.

Sergei from Ukraine fled Ukraine after persistent persecution by the KGB, arrests, detentions and the threat of prosecution under

section 70, which would have resulted in a considerable period of admission.

These people, along with the people I spoke of earlier, José and Mirta Munoz and their children, fled to this country, to this province. Nobody wants to leave their homeland. Nobody wants to leave behind family, jobs, careers, automobiles and friends. These people came to this country, to this province, to seek refuge. They sought refuge in what they believed were the charitable arms of a generous country.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member have a question?

Mr Kormos: Yes, sir. The federal government is telling these people that they can't stay, that they must go, notwithstanding that they work hard. All of them work at daily jobs. What will the Ministry of Citizenship do to ensure that these people can continue to be the good citizens of Ontario that they've become by choice?

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship): I welcome this opportunity to speak on this issue because it is a concern of every member of our House when we look at people who have come to this province to share with us in a province we all value so highly, a place where we all seek democracy; people who have suffered in their homelands. I must share with my colleague that one of the many frustrations I had when I came to this position was that the previous two governments unfortunately had not sat down with the federal government and had an agreement or an arrangement on immigration.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): That is a lie. That's a bunch of lies. You are turning the main question into a political diatribe.

The Speaker: Order. The member for York Centre said something unparliamentary. I would ask him to withdraw the remark.

Mr Sorbara: The minister was saying that the previous two governments never negotiated with the federal government. I do not believe that to be true, but nevertheless I withdraw the allegation that she is lying.

Hon Ms Ziemba: The fact remains that we do not have an agreement with the federal government. We are in the process of negotiating an agreement with the federal government on immigration and refugee issues, one that I am proceeding with as quickly as we can. It has been part of the constitutional discussion as well. I want to assure not only my colleague but also the members who are sitting in the gallery today that I take this issue very seriously.

There are members from the Polish community in my own constituency who are also being sent back. I feel that is totally unfair, and I know every member in this House feels it's unfair when people who have been contributing to this province, who are raising their children here, who have children actually born in this province -- we want to work together to make sure we can assure them the safe place that we all share in Ontario.

I know, Mr Speaker, you're asking me to wrap up this question. Perhaps we can ask a supplementary of the member.

The Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr Kormos: You know, the indignity of being told you have to pay $25 a month for a work visa because you want to work is profound and so symbolic of what's happening to these people. José Munoz and his wife, Mirta Munoz, came here with their two young children from Argentina, but their two youngest children are Canadian citizens; they were born in this country, they were born in this province. I tell you, they are Ontarians, yet they are being sent back on the same plane on August 7 by the federal Minister of Employment and Immigration.

I plead with the minister to tell us that she will help me intervene, that she will help me approach the federal minister directly to ask him to defer the deportation date so these people have an opportunity to seek redress for what has been a long series of injustices done to them through the incompetence of people like Al Brown, a member of the tribunal that --

The Speaker: Would the member conclude his question, please.

Mr Kormos: Would she please help me intervene to make sure that the deportation date is deferred so we can perhaps save some people's lives?

Hon Ms Ziemba: Again, I want to assure every member of this House that we take very seriously the questions you have raised. As a government we are working towards having an agreement with the federal government so we can address these issues and certainly move on -- and I have to say, Mr Speaker, that when I look across the floor and people are shouting out when there are concerns being raised in the House; people have serious concerns and they are suffering under --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Will the minister take her seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I seek the support of the House so that we can have an orderly question period. I understand all of the circumstances under which the members are working, yet at the same time if members bring questions to the floor of the House they deserve to have those questions addressed and they deserve to be able to hear a response. I ask for the cooperation of all members so we can have that happen.

Had the minister completed her response?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I will conclude by saying that I know we will all work together to try to resolve these issues that are of grave importance.

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): I return to the Minister of Correctional Services. The backdrop about this question that has already been raised with generality before is, of course, the investigation in the United States that has occurred as a result of the forced resignation of the Secretary of the Navy, who was held responsible for the administration of his department when an allegation of sexual misconduct at one of the naval academies was not brought to his attention.

The minister has told us today that the first time he heard about this incident was yesterday. I accept the minister's word on that but I know, having been a minister, that ministers sometimes are blindsided by their staff. I know, having been a minister, that the first thing this minister would have done if he was doing his duty, as I'm sure he was, was to go back to his ministry, call in the deputy minister and the senior officials and say, "When did any of you first hear of this incident?" If he didn't get an answer to that question he would have fired them all.

But he would have gotten an answer to that question -- it may be right, it may be wrong; I don't know -- the question public administration requires us to ask, because there can be no allegation of coverup if the minister answers the question: "What were you told? When did these people admit they first heard about this incident?" Minister, you've got to answer that question here in the House or in the scrum, because it goes to the integrity of the administration of your department. When did your senior staff first hear about this incident?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Minister of Correctional Services): First of all, I want to say that I find unfortunate the analogy the member opposite first draws to some circumstance that occurred in the United States Navy or in some such other military installation with respect to the administration of the Ministry of Correctional Services on the ministry level.

Notwithstanding that, as I'd indicated, and I think quite succinctly and quite clearly earlier, this matter had not been brought to my attention, but the important thing from my perspective was that the main issue was that this matter get dealt with promptly and effectively, that it be actioned, and it was.

In terms of detail and in terms of dates, times, places, who talked to whom, who corresponded with whom, I don't have a particular interest in trying to give that out in dribs and drabs. I have indicated that I am seeking a full report, as is the Premier, from the secretary of cabinet. We will have that information shortly and then I think we can respond in a particularly responsible manner.

Mr Scott: I don't accept that and I don't think the public does. I respect the minister as an honourable man. I know, having been a minister, that the first thing he would do if this information came to his attention only yesterday, as he said it did, is to go back and ask, especially as his staff interviewed in the press said, "Senior officials knew about it some time ago," and he wouldn't deny to us or the press that he went back and said, "When did you people first hear about this and why didn't you tell me?" Any minister in Canada would have done that or be judged incompetent.

What I want to get from you is what they told you when you asked them, "When did you first hear about this in the department?" If you can't answer the question, as I know you can, don't you understand you're implicated in the failure to answer it? When did they tell you they first heard about this?

Hon Mr Pilkey: First of all, I acknowledge the wonderful ability of the member opposite to characterize and to phrase questions to his own purpose. I think, however, as I've indicated, it is quite important that the factual account of this be put in a proper chronology and that it be available in a complete way.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Leeds-Grenville with his question.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): It's pretty difficult to swallow that response, especially when the minister says that he has acted very quickly in this matter. I was told yesterday and raised it in the House in respect of the fact that this incident occurred some time ago and was in fact kept under wraps within his ministry by officials within his ministry. There was a gang rape, apparently, in one of the provincial institutions that he's responsible for, and he asked for a report.

I believe, as I suspect the public at large believes, this is an outrageous situation. We demand a much more forthcoming response from the minister, an explanation in respect to whom he's dealt with, what happened within the ministry, within the upper reaches of the bureaucracy. I asked him earlier; I'll ask him again: Was his deputy minister or an assistant deputy minister within the ministry aware of this matter?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I can't respond to allegations. I think that is exactly the reason I have called for a police investigation into the matter and I think that situation should rest there until we do get a report from the police authorities.

Beyond that, I have indicated that a very detailed and factual chronology of events will be provided to me and further determinations can be made at that time, but until that time, the immediate actions of the police investigation are being undertaken. I think that's what's critical and important, the welfare of people, and of female employees in particular, who may have come to some difficulty or harm, or those who may be placed in that situation in the future. That's the primary focus; that's the primary issue. The question of who did what or who didn't do what in terms of the chronology of events is secondary, but that will be ascertained and it will be known.

Mr Runciman: Again, it's difficult to understand the minister responding in the way in which he is today. He made a statement earlier when he talked about two initiatives he's committed himself to: One is the police investigation and the other is assuring the privacy of the individuals touched by the allegations.

Apparently, by his responses today and by his failure to mention in his statement today mention the importance of the reasons behind the fact that this matter was not dealt with in an expeditious manner by ministry staff -- why was this matter not referred to the Hamilton police when these allegations first arose? Why did members of his ministry staff simply not refer these allegations to the police in Hamilton? That wasn't done either.

These are very serious concerns which the minister does not respond to in his statement, and he is hiding again this afternoon. He simply refuses. I ask him again: Was his deputy minister aware of this? Was the assistant deputy minister aware of this?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The police investigation will reveal any matters that were criminal in nature and a subsequent report will acknowledge any administrative matters.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: When you stood up, after the minister had finished speaking, there were still eight seconds left on the clock. The member for St Catharines-Brock has a question she would like to pose today. I would like to suggest to you, Mr Speaker, that you interrupted as a result of the catcalls from the opposition and that she at least be allowed to put her question.

The Speaker: The member for Kitchener may have noticed that at the moment when I rose, it was to try to restore order in the chamber. Whenever that occurs, the clock continues to run. It's unfortunate. The only way you can proceed with a question beyond here would be if you sought the unanimous consent of the House.

Mr Ferguson: I move that we seek unanimous consent.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the member for St Catharines-Brock to ask a question?

Interjections: No.

PETITIONS

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition signed by approximately 200 people in Ontario and it reads as follows:

"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.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a petition signed by a number of residents throughout Metro Toronto:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the British North America Act of 1867 recognizes the right of Catholic students to a Catholic education, and in keeping with this the province of Ontario supports two education systems from kindergarten to grade 12/OAC; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board educates more than 104,000 students across Metropolitan Toronto; and

"Whereas these students represent 30% of the total number of students in this area, yet have access to just 20% of the total residential assessment and 9.5% of the pooled corporate assessment; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is able to spend $1,678 less on each of its elementary school students, and $2,502 less on each of its secondary school students than our public school counterpart;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now and restructure the way in which municipal and provincial tax dollars are apportioned so that Ontario's two principal educational tax systems are funded not only fully but with equity and equality."

I have signed this petition.

LANDFILL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition with 336 names from my riding of Dufferin-Peel. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Interim Waste Authority has released a list of 21 proposed sites in the region of Peel as possible candidates for landfill, 15 of which are located in the town of Caledon; and

"Whereas the decision to prohibit the regions of the greater Toronto area from searching for landfill sites beyond their boundaries is contrary to the intent of the Environmental Assessment Act, subsection 5(3); and

"Whereas the government has promised each person in Ontario the right to a full environmental assessment, including the right to a review of all options as it pertains to waste disposal in Ontario;

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

"That the Legislature of Ontario repeal Bill 143 in its entirety, and allow a more democratic process for the consideration of future options for the disposal of greater Toronto area waste, particularly the consideration of disposal sites beyond the boundaries of the greater Toronto area, where a 'willing host' community exists that is interested in developing a new disposal system for greater Toronto area waste."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

ENVIRONMENTAL TAX

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I have a petition from 150 people who live in the riding of Durham East. Their petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario says that they're not in favour of the environmental levy tax put on beer cans. Furthermore, they're against any levy that may be placed on soda cans. "These cans are 100% recyclable and are currently being recycled at a high rate. To impose this and any further tax on the canning industry will cripple the canning industry and send jobs south of the border."

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition signed by 1,330 people. This includes management and workers of the various unions of the Ontario canning industry.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We are not in favour of the environmental levy tax put on beer cans. Furthermore, we are against any levy to be placed on soda cans. These cans are 100% recyclable and are currently being recycled at a high rate. To impose this and any further tax on the canning industry will cripple the canning industry and send jobs south of the border."

I will affix my signature on this. I support it wholeheartedly.

LANDFILL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have another 2,000 signatures from the town of Markham with regard to the proposed landfill sites this government is trying to put in in 57 different locations around York region, Durham and Peel.

"To the Lieutenant Governor in Council:

"We, the undersigned, hereby call on the government of Ontario to discontinue the consideration of locating waste disposal sites in Markham M6, the 11th concession south of Locust Hill, and waste disposal site Markham M3, located north of 16th Avenue between McCowan and Kennedy, and in all other areas that are located in the immediate vicinity of environmentally sensitive areas of York Region."

I affix my name to this. It represents a cross-section of people from my community.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas the town of Whitchurch-Stouffville has traditionally been a mixture of agricultural and residential land and both areas would be drastically affected by a megadump; and

"Whereas the Interim Waste Authority has identified sites in the town that would consume large tracts of class 1 and 2 farm land, the areas identified by the Interim Waste Authority would severely disrupt the vibrant agricultural communities. The farm families in those areas have always continued to invest large sums of money in their farms. These communities would be destroyed by the Interim Waste Authority putting in a megadump; and

Whereas most of the people of Whitchurch-Stouffville depend on groundwater for their drinking water, the dump would threaten their supply of clean water; and

"Whereas the effects of a megadump would destroy the local economies of these communities;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"We oppose the Interim Waste Authority's proposal to take prime farm land in the heart of the town to turn it into Metro and York's megadump.

"We further petition the Legislative Assembly to renew their efforts to seek and entertain alternatives to landfill and implement aggressive reduction, reuse and recycling programs."

This petition is quite similar to the ones I presented from East Gwillimbury and Georgina, and I affix my name.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition signed by 29 residents of Middlesex county.

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the report of Mr John Brant, arbitrator for the greater London area, has recommended a massive, unwarranted and unprecedented annexation by the city of London;

"Whereas the arbitration process was a patently undemocratic process resulting in recommendations which blatantly disregarded the public input expressed during the public hearings;

"Whereas the implementation of the arbitrator's report will lead to a destruction of the way of life enjoyed by the current residents of the county of Middlesex and will result in the remnant portions of Middlesex potentially not being economically viable,

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

"That the Legislature of Ontario 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.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition from my riding of Dufferin-Peel and it's addressed:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario;

"Whereas the recent death and injury of five youths within the riding of Dufferin-Peel has deeply disturbed the residents; and

"Whereas these deaths might have been prevented if legislation concerning graduated licensing had been in place; and

"Whereas we would like to prevent further death and injuries to our new drivers and young people;

"We would like to petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to bring forward legislation to introduce graduated licences within the province of Ontario."

I have affixed my signature to that petition.

ENVIRONMENTAL TAX

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have a petition signed by many residents in my constituency, people like Seth Caskey, Tom Bowden and Steve Smith. They say they are not in favour of the environmental levy tax put on beer cans. Furthermore, they are against any levy to be put on soda cans. "These cans are 100% recyclable and are currently recycled at a very high rate. To impose this and any further tax on the canning industry will cripple the canning industry and send jobs south of the border."

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a petition with a number of signatures, over 100, signed by people who were at Maurice Cody Community Centre for an anti-market value rally. It says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is arbitrary and demonstrably unfair to use market value as a basis for property tax assessment in a volatile market such as Metropolitan Toronto; and

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

"Whereas the implementation of such a measure would work undue hardship on the residents of North Toronto, on our long-term home owners, our senior citizens and our tenants;

"Whereas Toronto businesses are already paying the highest property taxes in North America and will be devastated by increases of up to 50% more;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not to impose market value reassessment on the city of Toronto against the wishes of the people of Toronto, and to consider another method of property tax reform for Metro Toronto."

I wholeheartedly agree with this and will affix my signature.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by 61 residents of the county of Middlesex. These residents include people from Glencoe, Kerwood, Strathroy, Parkhill, disparate parts of the county, and they respectfully request that the Legislature set aside the report of the arbitrator, Mr John Brandt, as it relates to the greater London area.

Further, Mr Speaker, by virtue of the fact that this petition was sponsored and circulated by the townships of the county of Middlesex, I would hope that those townships in that county would be just as concerned as we about the environment in Middlesex and the protection of agricultural land.

I have affixed my name to this petition.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I just want to warn the members that petitions are not a period where you make statements. It's to read a petition.

EDUCATION FINANCING

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the British North America Act of 1867 recognizes the right of Catholic students to a Catholic education, and in keeping with this the province of Ontario supports two educational systems from kindergarten to grade 12/OAC; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board educates more than 104,000 students across Metropolitan Toronto, and

whereas these students represent 30% of the total number of students in this area, yet have access to just 20% of the total residential assessment and 9.5% of the pooled corporate assessment; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is able to spend $1,678 less on each of its elementary school students and $2,502 less on each of its secondary school students than our public school counterpart;

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

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Remo Mancini (Essex South): I have a petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my own name to this petition.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I have a petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature to this petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Cousens, on behalf of Mr Runciman, from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's ninth report.

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

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 Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I believe that yesterday Mr Kwinter had finished the debate and we were at the questions and comments period. Mr Kwinter is not here. Therefore, are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Mr Speaker, before I commence my remarks I would like to request unanimous consent that for the duration of this debate we leave aside questions, comments and replies from speakers.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

Mr Arnott: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm very pleased to rise today on behalf of the people of Wellington and as our party's small business advocate to speak to Bill 40,

An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Collective Bargaining and Employment. I think the title of the bill should be

An Act to expand Union Membership and give Unions the Power to take over Companies.

Bill 40, as we know, has caused a great deal of controversy in this province and among many groups and individuals. I hope to be able to bring forward some of the views the people of my riding have expressed to me over the course of the 30 minutes I have to make my presentation.

I will begin from the outset by expressing a considerable degree of frustration at having only 30 minutes to express the concerns of my constituents because, as we know, Bill 40 contains 32 separate amendments. It's a very lengthy omnibus bill, approximately 45 pages in length, with many significant changes. It's going to be very difficult to have the time to get into the specifics of my concerns. I'm afraid I'm going to restrict my comments to my general concerns about this bill because of the fact I don't have very much time.

I'd initially present the fact that the Progressive Conservative caucus is totally opposed to Bill 40, to these amendments to the Labour Relations Act and related amendments, because we believe that it is going to cause many job losses in Ontario. Many thousands of jobs will be lost as a result of this bill. We have made our position very clear, that we would scrap these amendments should we come to power in two to three years' time.

I'd like to give a couple of comments as to where I'm coming from with respect to this bill. My family's been in the heavy construction business for about 63 years. I grew up in that sort of family, a small family business. While I was going to university I financed my own way through university. I spent one summer at the Scarborough General Motors van plant. I was a card-carrying member of the United Auto Workers for that period of time and paid dues to that union.

I would like to get immediately into some letters. I don't normally do this in debates -- read letters from constituents into the record -- but in this instance I'm going to because I think their comments with respect to this debate are very compelling.

I will start off by reading a letter I have received from Graham Fiber Glass Ltd, from Robert B. Weeks, the president. He's written my colleague the member for Waterloo North, who's our party's Labour critic, and also sent a petition signed by 26 employees of this company. It's not just the employer who's concerned about Bill 40; the employees are concerned about their jobs. I will read the following submission from Mr Weeks:

"We support and admire your personal efforts in opposing the government's unneeded and very unwise proposals to amend the OLRA. The minister's proposals are creating a negative climate for new investment in manufacturing and driving away employers whose success is sensitive to cooperative labour relations. Jobs have been lost because of the added uncertainty over the future balance of forces in organized labour relations."

Another letter, which I received from Mr Jim Fettes of Lloyd Stewart Lumber Ltd in Mount Forest, is addressed to the Minister of Labour:

"Our company, along with the other 150 Homecare members across Ontario, comes under the heading of 'small business.' Individually, we do not contribute vast sums to the economy of Ontario, but collectively the small business companies in this province do provide a large percentage of the jobs, and the sales and services, that keep the economy of Ontario running. The proposed changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act could significantly shift the balance of power between employers such as ourselves and organized labour. In these difficult times, the long-term effects on the economy of such proposals becoming law would be profound and devastating."

Another letter, from Husky Farm Equipment Ltd in Alma, is signed by Raymond Grose, the president:

"I have taken notice to some of your government's proposals for Ontario's Labour Relations Act." This is addressed to the Minister of Labour.

"If these proposals are enacted it could be disastrous to our province. If you frighten all the businesses away or squeeze the profit margin so that it is not worthwhile being in business, then many businesses will close or move out. Who then will provide work for all the people? How will the people have money to buy the goods produced by labour? It seems that you are going at things backwards.

"The only way to keep the entrepreneurial spirit going is to keep business healthy. The business then will look after the labour people.

"It simply won't work by having labour trying to run the business that they don't own or have no investment in.

"Business people in Ontario are not going to improve by holding a whip over them. They will simply disappear; nothing you can do will stop them."

Another letter, from Noecker Travel Ltd in Elora, signed by Janette Noecker, in part says:

"We believe in the rights of our employees and are fully aware it is in our interest to deal with our employees in a fair way. We are mainly small business entrepreneurs -- always at high risk -- and it appears that government has forgotten our legitimate rights.

"Please provide a signal to us that government is listening to our voice. You can do so by toning down or scrapping the proposed reform. The proposed changes as they impact on our industry are unnecessary at this time and will do much harm if passed."

From Mundell Lumber Co Ltd of Erin, a letter signed by William Mundell and James Mundell and addressed to me:

"Dear Sir:

"We strongly object to the proposed changes to the Ontario labour laws for the following reasons. They would:

"1. Seriously upset the balance between management and staff;

"2. Frighten away business investment;

"3. Make Ontario less competitive;

"4. Make the manager's and supervisor's job more difficult."

They go on to say, "We feel that many of the above changes are very, very unfair and suggest that all or most of them be changed."

Another letter, from Deborah Shortill of Hannah's Closet in Erin, reads as follows:

"Dear Mr Arnott:

"If ever there was a time for sensible people to stand up and be counted, it is now. The labour laws that Bob Rae's NDP government are determined to pass into law will give unions the power to completely control and ultimately crush free enterprise. Where is freedom when even owning your own business does not give a person control of their business and their lives? This NDP government seems to be concerned only with protecting the rights, freedoms and livelihoods of those who do not pay the bills. Where do they expect the money to come from once they've put us all out of business?

"Please, Mr Arnott, fight against this NDP government.... Help restore sound government and business practices in Ontario. Help honest, hard-working people, not unions. We won't be able to shoulder their heavy debt load for ever."

A letter from McKinnell Farm Equipment Ltd, from Ross McKinnell, addressed to me, says:

"Unless Premier Rae takes a different stance towards business, then I feel our province is in deep trouble. Small business is important to the economy of our province."

I would urge the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology to listen to what I'm saying.

"I would urge that you and your colleagues in the opposition take a strong stand against any further changes to the Labour Relations Act."

From Speare Seeds in Harriston, Ontario, comes a lengthy letter to the Minister of Labour talking about the effect that these proposals will have on agriculture, which is a very important component of the economy in Wellington. He starts off with a number of preliminary comments and he talks about the unique aspects of the agrifood sector:

"The agricultural industry is faced with conditions which make it very unique in nature. Significant seasonal demands are placed on agribusiness products and services and, in many cases, products handled and/or manufactured by the industry are perishable in nature. Agricultural producers have come to rely on the agribusiness sector for consistent quality and service, whether it be providing feed for livestock or receiving and drying grains or oilseeds."

He continues on: "Use of replacement workers: Because of the seasonal demands placed on the agrifood system and the reliance on the agribusiness sector for products and services, the proposal which restricts the use of replacement workers is of critical concern to our industry. Because of the seasonal nature of the grain elevator industry, a labour dispute during harvest could result in significant loss of revenue through the inability to provide essential services to the producer sector, simply because replacement workers could not be utilized to perform necessary operations."

The farm economy in Wellington and across the province does not adhere to the industrial model of labour relations that the government continues to put forward. There simply has to be a full exemption -- and I'm glad the Minister of Agriculture and Food is here -- from the Labour Relations Act for our farm community.

W. C. Wood Co Ltd, not in my riding but in the riding of Guelph, is an outstanding company that manufactures refrigerators and a number of other home appliances. It's a family company with hundreds of employees that has no union. They've gotten along just fine without one. John Wood has written the Minister of Labour, and I'll quote from his letter:

"It should be mandatory that employees have a right to a secret ballot vote on any decision to strike with the wording on the ballot being, 'Having received a full outline in writing of the current negotiations including details on the latest company offer, do you wish at this time to strike: yes/no?' Too often we see situations where employees have provided their union with the authority to call a strike if necessary, believing that no such strike will ever be called. This is unfair to the employees," unfair to the individual rights of the workers.

He continues: "We must recognize that no one wins during a strike." I would add to that that perhaps the union leaders win in a strike, but that's not Mr Wood's comment. "The strike usually proves costly to all concerned, the company, the union, the suppliers, the customers and, most importantly, the employees of both the company being struck and the suppliers and customers of the company being struck. The objectives should be as much as possible to reduce the number of strikes and, where strikes occur, the duration of the strike.

To shorten the process, I believe employees should be entitled to receive updates weekly from both their union and their employer of the status of negotiations once a strike has started. Preferably the release should be a joint release. However, if this is not possible, separate releases should be obligatory."

Sensible suggestions from one of the prominent business people in my area. Another letter from W. C. Wood. As I said, there's no union there. Instead, they have a labour committee that works very well with management. This is a letter addressed to the minister from the labour committee. This is the employees of that big manufacturing company in Guelph expressing grave concern about Bill 40. It concludes with the following:

"We, the labour committee of W. C. Wood Co Ltd, strongly believe that individual rights to free speech and freedom of choice should not be diminished or transferred to organizations, be they businesses, governments, unions or other labour organizations," once again a concern that individual rights are being totally taken away because of Bill 40 in favour of these collective rights the government is claiming will be more advantageous to everybody, which we completely disagree with.

I have another letter here, from Norm Mainland, personnel manager of Monroe Auto Equipment Co of Canada, a big plant in Owen Sound, outside of my riding again, but they've sent this information to me and I'm going to voice it. They're a big plant with no union and with an excellent record of labour-management cooperation and harmony in that plant without the benefit of a union. Mr Mainland writes:

"We, as many other companies in our city, industry and province, are foreign-owned. What our owners are seeing in the last couple of years is a situation where the provincial government appears to have a distinct anti-business bias and a highly interventionist labour agenda. Various studies in the last few months have identified some consequences due to these perceptions which should be terrifying for the government; they certainly are for me as an individual employee.

These studies have shown the potential loss to Ontario of hundreds of thousands of jobs and tens of billions of dollars in lost investment opportunity. Whether or not one believes the specific numbers presented by these studies, the fact that it was deemed the studies were needed means there is a problem. Ontario is perceived, by Canadian as well as foreign business, as presenting a climate unfriendly to business. It does not matter whether that perception is factual; business people will take action based on their perceptions. What's real to them is real to them.

Revolution rather than evolution scares away the decision-makers."

That's an outstanding comment. The minister and the government are refusing to admit it's true.

From Barry Cullen Chevrolet Oldsmobile Ltd, a car dealership in Guelph, writing to me:

"The labour movement is already very well served by our present Labour Relations Act. Why not be fair and keep the pendulum in the centre rather than swinging it far to one side. Six months ago we had 81 employees. Today we have 70 and contemplating further layoffs. We are not going to get these people back to work by giving prospective investors one more reason not to invest in Ontario."

I know I've gone through about 15 minutes of my time on those letters but I feel those comments are very, very important. The government would be very wise to listen to them. For the government to continue to maintain that when we speak in opposition to Bill 40 we're fearmongering and scaring away investment -- that is absolutely not true. The two ministers over there know it full well. We're voicing our concerns. It is the actions of this government that are driving away investment, as we all know.

From the local government in the riding of Wellington, a resolution passed by county council on March 26, endorsed by county council, calling these proposals as follows:

"

(1) The proposals will not enhance labour peace.

"

(2) Many of the proposals infringe employees' freedom of choice, civil liberties and normal democratic principles.

"

(3) The proposals do not improve the ability of the parties to respond to change and competition.

"

(4) The proposals fail to enhance workplace harmony by improving the parties' ability to resolve issues internally. Instead the proposals are likely to increase government or third-party intervention into the employment relationship.

"

(5) A number of the proposals are likely to increase the size and cost of government."

Not only county council expressing its concern to me, but also 10 municipalities in my riding expressing concern: town of Fergus, town of Mount Forest, village of Arthur, village of Erin, township of Arthur, township of Pilkington, township of Maryborough, township of Peel, township of West Luther, township of Guelph -- all of these municipalities and their municipal councils passing resolutions opposed to Bill 40.

Over the course of the break, actually starting in November, I personally walked around to many of the small businesses in my riding, as many as I could get to. Whenever I had the opportunity I took these days from November to March, and I visited literally hundreds of small business people in my riding. I conducted a survey of their concerns. One of the questions I asked was whether they were in favour of amendments to the Labour Relations Act such as the government was proposing.

I received 161 responses, which I've already raised in the House, but I feel it's worth repeating: 98% of those responses indicated opposition to amendments to the Labour Relations Act as the government has presented them. Without a doubt the vast majority of people in my riding of Wellington are totally opposed to Bill 40.

We look across the province and see a poll that was released within the past week or so, Environics: 66% of the respondents believing that these proposals will cost jobs; 78% asking that more study be done, saying that more study is required before this government goes ahead with these proposals -- a very clear indication of public opinion in this province on this bill.

The government has been presented with the question many, many times: Why are we going ahead with these amendments to Bill 40? The government response has been consistent. The government has continued to say that there is a changing economy, there is a changing workplace, we have to update the act and there is a need for greater cooperation in labour-management relations, greater harmony in the workplace. I agree that there is need for greater harmony and greater cooperation in our workplace. I don't think anyone in this House disputes that. We all know that in order to be competitive in the world economy, increasingly we're going to have to be more cooperative in every way in our society.

I agree that the economy in Ontario has changed significantly in the last five years and that there is some requirement for new approaches in this place and in our government and so on, but we must question whether Bill 40 is the answer to foster this greater cooperation.

We have seen a response from many sectors in this province to Bill 40 that would indicate that it is very unlikely that this is going to create any more cooperation in any place in Ontario. I can't see how the government can continue to put forward that view with any credibility. It has still not established why it is going ahead with these proposals.

I was at a labour law forum in Halton Hills, I guess a week and a half ago, and the member for Brantford was there speaking on behalf of the government. There was a representative from the Ontario Federation of Labour and a representative from the CFIB, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. We went through a number of different questions. We each had a chance for opening comments; we had questions. One of the last questions, asked by a person who took the time to come to this forum the day before Canada Day, on a long weekend, was, "Why are you going ahead with these amendments?"

The government still has not established why. So what are we to conclude except that the real reason is to empower union bosses in a payback for all the years of support the unions have given the NDP and, before that, the CCF? We can draw no other conclusion, and that's the conclusion we've drawn.

On the other side, who is in support of these amendments? We see, of course, that the NDP caucus is supportive of these amendments. I'm not surprised. The unions are supportive of these amendments. I've received a couple of letters asking me to support these amendments, not from constituents, but actually from people from Guelph. Guelph and District Labour Council was urging me to support these amendments. The union leadership in my area was asking me to support these amendments. I did not receive mail from any worker, that I can recall, indicating that they felt they required these amendments and urging me to do so. I do not recall any letter to that effect.

We must ask, what will be the impact of Bill 40 on our economy? Ernst and Young, one of the most respected accountancy firms in Ontario, a firm the government has employed for various studies, has done an extensive study on Bill 40 and has concluded there is a potential for significant job loss if Bill 40 is enacted into law. They are talking about 295,000 jobs that may be lost if this goes through. They are also talking about $9 billion of private investment -- every dollar, probably, creating jobs in this province -- that will be forgone as a result of this bill.

We have consistently requested that the minister present us with his own impact study of this bill, because we assume he is not so foolish as to not have; we assume he has done one and that he has that information. His reluctance to disclose that information leads us to believe that it confirms this result. We have grave concerns that thousands and thousands of jobs will be lost as a result of this bill.

When the minister refuses to divulge any factual information of any impact study, what are we to conclude except to go on the information we have, which is an independent study that has been done? I know he's put forward the view that there are a lot of assumptions that are required and that the economic model is difficult to do, but we have to go with the best information we can obtain if we're going to make a sound, reasonable judgement on this issue. This is the only evidence we have. It's objective evidence and it causes great concern in Ontario.

The number one issue today in Ontario is that of jobs and the concern about the job losses we have had over the past number of months as a result of the recession. Every government initiative that is coming forward has to have applied to it a litmus test: Will this initiative cost jobs or will it help in the creation of new jobs? That's my view, and in this circumstance I think this litmus test that we must apply to Bill 40 shows that Bill 40 will cost a lot of jobs, without question. I would say it's no exaggeration to say that literally thousands of jobs will be lost as a result of the passage of Bill 40.

I'm our party's Tourism and Recreation critic, and I want to speak very briefly on how this Bill 40 will affect the tourism and hospitality industry in Ontario. Our tourism industry is very, very important to our economy and we ignore it at our peril as policymakers. We must understand that in the tourism sector, they rely on excellent service, goodwill and professional hospitality in order to get repeat business.

There must be a team concept at every tourist resort so that management and labour work in harmony towards the common goal of keeping the customer satisfied, and hopefully encouraging the customer to come back. Hopefully the customer leaves with a perception that he had an excellent holiday, an excellent vacation or an excellent business trip, tells his friends and colleagues that he really enjoyed that vacation, and he returns. The threat of a disruption of service at a tourist destination can be devastating to a tourist facility or resort.

Again, the tourism industry does not maintain an inventory of any kind. It's not an industrial factory. There is no inventory maintained and there is a very dynamic market. There are fluctuations in the demand for the tourism product. If you have more tourists coming in, you need more people, and the labour force in the tourism industry has to be extremely flexible to respond to that.

Any threat of a disruption of service can be devastating to a restaurant or a hotel or a motel or anything of that sort, because it demonstrates to the customer that the place is not a good place to go and it makes it very, very difficult for it to get repeat business. In fact many restaurants that have in the past faced disruption of service, a strike, for example, close within a week's time, because their cash flow is that tight.

A reliable and a productive staff in a tourist destination, in a tourist place, is very essential for continued business, and I believe the vast majority of tourism operators ensure that they have good, harmonious relationships with their staff, because it's in their interest to do so.

I'd like to quote from Tourism Ontario with respect to Bill 40. Tourism Ontario of course is the major tourism interest group. "Regrettably, most of the proposed OLRA reforms are nothing short of 'an agenda for organized labour.'"

I think I'm getting down to the end of my time, and I want to talk very briefly about the concept of collective versus individual rights.

With Bill 40, we are seeing a government that is totally embracing collective rights at the expense of individual rights. The collective right of the union is paramount; the individual rights of the union membership are insignificant and will be totally discarded.

We see with Bill 40 the loss of petition right for an individual in a union who wants to get out of the union, to change his mind, to say, "The union's not representing my interests so I'm going to petition against it." That's lost.

We see the loss of the right to reconsider the fact that you've signed a union card and maybe in 48 hours you've reconsidered your decision -- again an individual right that is being lost.

We see the absence of a secret ballot requirement, an absolute requirement for every ballot that's taken to be done in secret, for certification, for strike votes, for ratification of contracts and for decertification -- again a very important individual right that should be in place in our labour law that the government is totally ignoring and saying: "We're not going to have individual rights any more in the workplace. They're all collective rights and the union is going to represent you whether you like it or not."

Our party, in opposition, has made great efforts to put forward alternative courses of action for this government to follow. We believe that in opposition we have a responsibility and an obligation to demonstrate the downside of the initiatives the government is bringing forward, but we also have a responsibility to put forward positive alternatives. We take that very seriously and we have done that in every instance that has come to our attention in this place.

Our party has put forward this position, and I totally endorse it with respect to what we're saying, and the people of my riding I believe are totally in favour of this position, that there immediately be a full, independent impact study commissioned and publicly released for further discussion in all sectors of our economy and, if the minister is sitting there and if he's done his own impact study, I'm saying to him now that he should release it for the sake of letting people know what impact he knows Bill 40 is going to have on Ontario.

If the impact study demonstrates that the effect of Bill 40 is going to be negative, if there is going to be any significant job loss whatsoever, these proposals should be shelved for further consideration; th